Why Do You Do It?

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:00:23 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:56:23 +0930, David Simpson
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:00:51 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:40:25 -0700, MrEd
wrote:


When somebody posts a message that is counter the purpose of the
group,

Is the purpose of this group for you to propagate stories about
kidnapping and raping toddlers then?

No!

So there are *some* levels of depravity that you actually consider
beyond the pale?
------------------
You're LYING again. What YOU'RE ACTUALLY objecting to is that which
we do NOT consider "depravity", only YOU do!

You don't consider glorifying the abduction,torture and rape of
toddlers in diapers depraved?
--------------------------
Sure, and if you limited yourself to that you'd have no audience,
because everyone would agree with you. That's why you won't DO THAT!


You're trying to damn what we like

You like masturbating to images of infant rape and torture?
-------------------------------
No. But that's never all you're talking about, and you know it.


by pretending it's the same as what we don't, when they're
quite diametrically opposed, and when **** like YOU are most likely to
do those truly horrible things, and NOT US!

I don't know who your "we" might be but aligning yourself blindly with
this despicable creature and his hideous sadistic child pornography is
noted.
------------------------------
I have no proof of any such thing. All I see is words.
Steve

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:43:17 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:00:23 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:56:23 +0930, David Simpson
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:00:51 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:40:25 -0700, MrEd
wrote:


When somebody posts a message that is counter the purpose of the
group,

Is the purpose of this group for you to propagate stories about
kidnapping and raping toddlers then?

No!

So there are *some* levels of depravity that you actually consider
beyond the pale?
------------------
You're LYING again. What YOU'RE ACTUALLY objecting to is that which
we do NOT consider "depravity", only YOU do!

You don't consider glorifying the abduction,torture and rape of
toddlers in diapers depraved?
--------------------------
Sure,

Thank you

and if you limited yourself to that you'd have no audience,
because everyone would agree with you. That's why you won't DO THAT!

That is not the case. Sadly there are advocates for the production and
consumption of such at claim it as their "right".
-----------------------------
The production and consumption of "abduction, torture, and rape? Or
the production of WORDS ABOUT those things?? You're close to backing
the end of all fiction because you're frightened someone will get off
on illegal things! No more murder mysteries? No more swashbuckling?


Of course you have sipped the groups where folk support it
and your right to masturbate to it.
---------------------------
I've accidentally seen it while searching for kinder and gentler.
There's no way to stop some people from masturbating to anything,
but YOUR question SHOULD BE: Do we want to remove their outlet?
How do you know that won't interest them in the REAL THING, as
has consistently been shown in studies of all kinds of violent
pornography?? I'd rather they whacked off to stories, rather than
real people!


You're trying to damn what we like

You like masturbating to images of infant rape and torture?
-------------------------------
No.

Thank you

But that's never all you're talking about, and you know it.

It's what I am talking about here.
----------------------------
Those images are evidence of a crime. I believe the issue here
extends only to your complaint about textual porn or LEGAL
pictures of people and your exaggerations about their danger.


by pretending it's the same as what we don't, when they're
quite diametrically opposed, and when **** like YOU are most likely to
do those truly horrible things, and NOT US!

I don't know who your "we" might be but aligning yourself blindly with
this despicable creature and his hideous sadistic child pornography is
noted.
------------------------------
I have no proof of any such thing. All I see is words.

I doubt you will believe it of course,but his "art" would even sicken
you to the core.
-----------------------
Doesn't mean that is doesn't slake his sick thirst to the substantial
benefit of the public. Violent porn is consistently shown to be
dissipative of those interests, not encouraging of them. Their drive
for them is sufficient encouragement to peg the needle. The material
to fantasize has the same effect as actually experiencing it and their
masturbation meets their needs as any normal heterosexual's does.
Steve

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:18:03 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

There is evidence that sadistic sex murderers surround themselves
with a sea of such filth
------------------
And all heroin addicts also chew gum. Does gum cause heroin addiction?

However related, it isn't shown to be in any way CAUSAL, in fact it is
shown to DEFUSE the desire!


You're close to backing
the end of all fiction because you're frightened someone will get off
on illegal things! No more murder mysteries? No more swashbuckling?

There is not the least literary merit involved.
--------------------
About Murder mysteries and dumb pirate movies I would agree
artistically!!

Oh but give me a break, they said that about comic books
and Huckleberry Finn!!!


Of course you have sipped the groups where folk support it
and your right to masturbate to it.
---------------------------
I've accidentally seen it while searching for kinder and gentler.

I wonder if you have.
--------------------------
The textual stuff, sure, nothing else.


There's no way to stop some people from masturbating to anything,
but YOUR question SHOULD BE: Do we want to remove their outlet?
How do you know that won't interest them in the REAL THING, as
has consistently been shown in studies of all kinds of violent
pornography??

It's still a debate.
Desensitization is a very real phenomena.
-------------------------
Nonsense. That dynamic has never been shown, other than the claim that
people who like that **** are already desensitized, which, in case you
don't grasp this, renders any argument for causation as phony.


I'd rather they whacked off to stories, rather than
real people!

I take your point, but I would rather they were in a maximum
security institution for the criminally insane.
----------------------------
Not if they don't hurt anyone. Or are you just a fascist religious
Inquisitioner??


Those images are evidence of a crime. I believe the issue here
extends only to your complaint about textual porn

If it inflames bestial and sick urges to kidnap and torture infants.
-----------------------------
There is NO such scientific connection. In fact the reverse was shown
in the Meese reports.


or LEGAL
pictures of people and your exaggerations about their danger.

No only child pornography masquerading as "art".
------------------------
I've never seen any of that "art" involve rape or turture.
Quite the opposite, it depicts children as sexually angelic.


I doubt you will believe it of course,but his "art" would even sicken
you to the core.
-----------------------
Doesn't mean that is doesn't slake his sick thirst to the substantial
benefit of the public. Violent porn is consistently shown to be
dissipative of those interests, not encouraging of them. Their drive
for them is sufficient encouragement to peg the needle. The material
to fantasize has the same effect as actually experiencing it and their
masturbation meets their needs as any normal heterosexual's does.

I would like to think you were correct
----------------------------
Then read the Meese reports. Republican sponsored science that came
to conclusions that THEY didn't like at ALL! One "believer" was in
tears, and addressed the crowd at the presentation by saying, "we
KNOW that there HAS to be a link between porn and crime, but we JUST
CAN'T *FIND* ONE!!"


but there have been plenty of
mentally ill folk who have taken such writings as a game plan.
--------------------------------------
And there are always a very few kids who imitate the evil they saw in
some movie, but we know that only kids who are already damaged do such
things. It was just a matter of mode and manner, and they were going
to work it out themselves if they didn't know of any example.

The rest of us who saw the movie don't DO that, but that kind of
damaged abused kid will do something evil even if that movie never
existed!!
Steve

Brandon D Cartwright wrote in
:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:43:17 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:00:23 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:56:23 +0930, David Simpson
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:00:51 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:40:25 -0700, MrEd
wrote:


When somebody posts a message that is counter the purpose of the
group,

Is the purpose of this group for you to propagate stories about
kidnapping and raping toddlers then?

No!

So there are *some* levels of depravity that you actually consider
beyond the pale?
------------------
You're LYING again. What YOU'RE ACTUALLY objecting to is that which
we do NOT consider "depravity", only YOU do!

You don't consider glorifying the abduction,torture and rape of
toddlers in diapers depraved?
--------------------------
Sure,

Thank you

The acts are depraved. Thoughts of such acts aren't. Unless, of course, you
believe a thought is the same as an act?



and if you limited yourself to that you'd have no audience,
because everyone would agree with you. That's why you won't DO THAT!

That is not the case. Sadly there are advocates for the production and
consumption of such at claim it as their "right".

Production and consumption are separate issues. In the Intrnet environment
where volumes of material are freely availble (i.e. without charge), it is
ludicrous to claim that consumption causes production. Those that produce
and post these images that you abhore are not doing it for financial gain
from the consumers. This may have been so when images were sold through
magazines or mailorder and the producer obtained payment.

There are other, darker, reasons why some people produce and distrubute
images of abusive acts, but satisfying the "consumer" is not one.
Penalizing the consumer will have no effect upon such productions.

Of course you have sipped the groups where folk support it
and your right to masturbate to it.

The materials people chose to masturbate to isn't a "right," nor is it a
wrong. It is simply a choice that causes no harm to others.

You may not find other's choice to be stimulating to yourself, but that
doesn't confer rightousness upon your decision.

What do you masturbate to? Is it "right?" It may very well be right for
you, but does that mean everyone else has to accept your proclamation of
what is "right" for themselves?

Do you have the "right" to approve of what somebody, in their privacy,
masturbates to? Can you show a causal relation of harm to the subjects of
images from the private activities of a masturbator?


You're trying to damn what we like

You like masturbating to images of infant rape and torture?
-------------------------------
No.

Thank you

Since you don't like this activity, is it "wrong" for everyone else?

But that's never all you're talking about, and you know it.


It's what I am talking about here.

I thought you were talking about masturbation materials... and which are
"right" and which are "wrong."

Could it be that you were talking about the rightness or wrongfulness of
masturbation and using the materials as a shield?


by pretending it's the same as what we don't, when they're
quite diametrically opposed, and when **** like YOU are most likely to
do those truly horrible things, and NOT US!

I don't know who your "we" might be but aligning yourself blindly with
this despicable creature and his hideous sadistic child pornography is
noted.
------------------------------
I have no proof of any such thing. All I see is words.

I doubt you will believe it of course,but his "art" would even sicken
you to the core.

I believe that *you* are sickened to the core ... but that doesn't mean
that everyone else has to be likewise sickened. If *you* don't like looking
at certain images, then *you* don't have to look at them. Don't presume
that all others should likewise be sickened by what *you* are made ill
by...

(Hint: this is called tolerance. Give it a try, and your blood pressure
will drop by 20 points!)






--
TomBa NP-f36

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:00:45 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:18:03 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

There is evidence that sadistic sex murderers surround themselves
with a sea of such filth
------------------
And all heroin addicts also chew gum. Does gum cause heroin addiction?

However related, it isn't shown to be in any way CAUSAL, in fact it is
shown to DEFUSE the desire!


You're close to backing
the end of all fiction because you're frightened someone will get off
on illegal things! No more murder mysteries? No more swashbuckling?

There is not the least literary merit involved.
--------------------
About Murder mysteries and dumb pirate movies I would agree
artistically!!

Oh but give me a break, they said that about comic books
and Huckleberry Finn!!!

Literary merit is the criterion used to decide whether a book is
pornography or publishable.
-------------------------
Posturing nonsense. These are orthogonal factors.


Of course you have sipped the groups where folk support it
and your right to masturbate to it.
---------------------------
I've accidentally seen it while searching for kinder and gentler.

I wonder if you have.
--------------------------
The textual stuff, sure, nothing else.

This textual stuff is in a class of it's own.
----------------------------
You just mean that you don't like it.


There's no way to stop some people from masturbating to anything,
but YOUR question SHOULD BE: Do we want to remove their outlet?
How do you know that won't interest them in the REAL THING, as
has consistently been shown in studies of all kinds of violent
pornography??

It's still a debate.
Desensitization is a very real phenomena.
-------------------------
Nonsense. That dynamic has never been shown, other than the claim that
people who like that **** are already desensitized, which, in case you
don't grasp this, renders any argument for causation as phony.


I'd rather they whacked off to stories, rather than
real people!

I take your point, but I would rather they were in a maximum
security institution for the criminally insane.
----------------------------
Not if they don't hurt anyone.

There is such a thing as the precautionary principle.
---------------------------
In law that is called prior restraint, and it's illegal under the U.S.
Constitution as it violates due process.


Those images are evidence of a crime. I believe the issue here
extends only to your complaint about textual porn

If it inflames bestial and sick urges to kidnap and torture infants.
-----------------------------
There is NO such scientific connection. In fact the reverse was shown
in the Meese reports.

IMO the jury is still out on that.
-----------------------
Then your opinion is baselesa and arbitrary.


or LEGAL
pictures of people and your exaggerations about their danger.

No only child pornography masquerading as "art".
------------------------
I've never seen any of that "art" involve rape or turture.
Quite the opposite, it depicts children as sexually angelic.

That's what I thought might be the case.
If you had seen it you might not defend it so vehemently.
-------------------------------
i don't defend it as a fan. I defend the right of speech and expression,
because without that ANYTHING evil can happen.


Doesn't mean that is doesn't slake his sick thirst to the substantial
benefit of the public. Violent porn is consistently shown to be
dissipative of those interests, not encouraging of them. Their drive
for them is sufficient encouragement to peg the needle. The material
to fantasize has the same effect as actually experiencing it and their
masturbation meets their needs as any normal heterosexual's does.

I would like to think you were correct
----------------------------
Then read the Meese reports. Republican sponsored science that came
to conclusions that THEY didn't like at ALL! One "believer" was in
tears, and addressed the crowd at the presentation by saying, "we
KNOW that there HAS to be a link between porn and crime, but we JUST
CAN'T *FIND* ONE!!"

Research on pornography

http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Research conducted involving 36 serial murderers revealed that 81%
(29/36) reported pornography as one of their highest sexual interests,
making pornography one of the most common profile characteristics of
serial murderers.
--------------------------
Uh-huh, but why don't you grasp that this is not CAUSAL!?? Don't you
grasp the concept of related non-causal co-factors?? That it is in the
nature of these creeps to like that kind of porn is unrelated to what
causes them to be that way, and what causes them to offend in that sort
of manner. Inevitably all criminals will like fiction in which criminals
win, but it wasn't what MADE them a criminal, nor is it what causes
them to offend! It's co-occurring, but UNRELATED causally!! In fact,
the fact that they LIKE that kind of porn is simply one and the SAME
as their desire to offend in that manner.

Listen: If you could prevent paroled felons from robbing banks by
showing them movies of bank robbers robbing banks and winning, and
having that satisfy their drive to rob, would you grant them those
movies, or would you be a stupid little moralist and refuse to use
a perfectly good way to sidetrack their criminal urges, BY SATISFYING
THOSE URGES!!

Everything in the research shows that rape porn prevents real-life
rape, and that pedophile porn prevents real-life pedophilic offenses.

And it does this in the EXACT SAME manner that standard pornography
relieves the need to have sex for real in normal people!!! Namely it
does this through FOOLING that person's brain into THINKING it just
had the kind of sex they desire, reinforced with masturbation that
brings the whole physical hormonal dynamic of orgasm to bear on the
limbic system! This results in up to a couple days in which they do
NOT feel they absolutely HAVE to have their chosen form of sexual
gratification!


Dr. William Marshall (1983)
He found that 86% of rapists admitted regular use of pornography, with
57% admitting actual imitation of pornography scenes in commission of
sex crimes.
Malamuth (1981)
--------------------
More non-causal co-factors. That's like claiming that chewing gum
causes crime because criminals use it! To show a true CAUSAL
relationship between a stimulus and a response, you HAVE to show
an increase in the response among people who receive the stimulus,
and NONE of these supposed "studies" of yours (pitiful examples, both)
do that!! What their purpose actually is nobody knows, because they
are NOT Science, because they do NOT manage to actually SHOW ANYTHING!!


Responses found to characterize (convicted) rapists we
1) general acceptance of rape myths, and

2) high arousal to rape depictions.
-------------------------
So they LIKE RAPE! We ALREADY KNEW THAT! What must be shown IF Science
is to occur here, is whether rape material INCREASED their desire or
frequency to rape, and that must be MUCH MORE than their IMPRESSION,
there must be studies to see if it REALLY DOES, carried out among
rapists who are NOT aware that someone is studying them or trying to
prove anything by it! Criminals have all sorts of motives that can
confound any effort to study them if they know they are being studied.
They have agendas too, to bend the results, and those must be guarded
against.


He studied male college students, asking them, "How likely would you
be to rape if you knew you would not be caught?" --35% indicated they
would.
-----------------------
And another 50% were lying because they were self-censoring or were
afraid their answers could leak out and inform against them! But just
the fact that so many were WILLING to admit that they would, signals
that something is totally DISTORTED about the way that this society
traditionally regards rape. Criminal activity is usually only an
epidemic process, epi- means "out on the edge". It is not PANDEMIC,
pan- means across the whole group, as this result among students was.
This suggests that rape is a cutting egde change-issue, and that we
can expect to see drastic change in our attitudes toward rape and
sex generally, in rhe next few decades!!


Malamuth and Check (1985)
After studying 307 students, they concluded that "media depictions
(pornography) suggesting that (showing that) rape results in the
victim's arousal contributes to men's belief in a similar rape myth --
particularly men with higher inclinations to aggress against women."
Victor Cline, Ph.D. (Utah Psychologist)
------------------------------
Which might mean that women in a sane society SHOULD be allowing many
men sexual access to them, and that this society's rejection of that
reflects the profound antisexual sickness of this society! If men are
aroused by what we CALL "rape", then maybe it ACTUALLY *IS* NORMAL!
Or maybe that LEVEL of enhanced sexual access to women is normal,
and it has been MISTAKENLY demeaned by this society! And maybe the
notion that rape-porn only makes it SEEM normal is totally ERRONEOUS!!

You see, you cannot make such judgments that are based on blithely
accepting society's current biases and prejudices, or else you run
the risk of interpreting such research in an entirely fraudulent
manner, and just because you're substituting what you'd lIKE
to be true for the REAl TRUTH, which can be QUITE different!!


He identified a common pattern of progression with many pornography
users (sex offenders):
1. addiction to hard core pornography;
-------------------
I've never seen a single description of supposed "addiction to porn"
that wasn't based on merely labeling what many think of as a normal
single sex life to be "pathological" just for the dishonest purpose
of demeaning it.


2. escalation in the need for more shocking material;
---------------------
Only Xtian fruitcakes worry that they will "need the harder stuff"
and ONLY because they have had inflicted upon them horrible guilt
and shame about their otherwise actually normal sexual responses.

We normal people who don't believe such crap never seem to need
any more or different porn than we have enjoyed all our lives!


3. desensitization toward initially shocking material; and
-------------------------
Yeah, if you've never seen porn before it can certainly desensitize
you to seeing sex!!

But if you mean that it desensitizes you to seeing actual cruelty,
you're just being a lying little nutcake.


4. an increased tendency to "act out" sexual activities
--------------------------
Maybe people who view porn feel sex is more acceptable than previously
they did, and might even be more likely to ask someone for a date,
but they are NOT interested in hurting anyone. Using the pseudo-psych
buzzword "acting out" is a garbage tactic meant to distort the truth.


Zillmann, Dolf (1982)
Findings show that massive exposure (4 hours forty minutes over six
weeks) to standard pornography (people having consensual, nonviolent
sex) resulted in
1. a loss of compassion toward women as rape victims and toward women
in general;
------------------------------
In this society women are obtusely antisexual, and are brainwashed
to be so. Porn makes it obvious that the way women are brainwashed
in this society is an offense against normal sexuality, and against
men in particular. This can QUITE FAIRLY make men less sympathetic
to the lunacy that women have against sex.

Listen: What do you call a woman who has been raped? A survivor!
Now: What do you call a man who has been raped? A dumb**** for
resisting!!

Do you get it yet??


2. a loss of concern about the effects of pornography on others;
----------------------
They become a partisan IN FAVOR OF IT! Classic political conversion!


3. a need for more violent and bizarre forms of sex;
-------------------------
You mean like anal and oral? You mean like pulling her hair in
doggy-position? That enhances HER pleasure as WELL once she accepts
her real sexuality! Those are NORMAL sex acts, dumb****!

They don't relate to cruelty and viciousness!


4. a desensitization to violent, non-coercive hard core pornography;
and
-------------------------
What in the world IS "violent non-coercisve" pornography?? That's
a total oxymoron!


5. a trivialization of rape.
-------------------------
Duh! Yeah!


Michigan State Police ( Lt. Darrell H. Pope)
Studied and recorded the use of pornography in sex crimes. He
researched 48,000 sex crimes spanning a 20 year period (1956-1979).
(Research was done in 1977, replicated in 1981).
In 42% of the 48,000 sex crimes investigated, police indicated that
pornography was involved -- used just prior to, or during the act of
sexual assault -- as stated by the victim or the offender.
-----------------------
More confounded non-causal co-factor crap. When a man wants to go
out and rape someone, how would he prepare, dumb****? It shows
NOTHING about any causal link to porn CAUSING rape.


Silbert and Pines (1984)
A detailed content analysis of 193 cases of rape and of 178 cases of
juvenile sexual abuse revealed a clear relationship between violent
pornography and sexual abuse.
Goldstein, Kant and Harman (1973)
------------------------
Duh! Yeah! People who like sexual abuse will like porn! Again, the
porn isn't shown to CAUSE the sexual abuse, it is only ATTENDANT
upon it. That means that it is something that the perp will like,
but NOT what CAUSED them to be a perp in the first place or later!
It's like combing your hair, you like doing that before you go out,
even if you're going out to rob a bank!


but there have been plenty of
mentally ill folk who have taken such writings as a game plan.
--------------------------------------
And there are always a very few kids who imitate the evil they saw in
some movie, but we know that only kids who are already damaged do such
things. It was just a matter of mode and manner, and they were going
to work it out themselves if they didn't know of any example.

The rest of us who saw the movie don't DO that, but that kind of
damaged abused kid will do something evil even if that movie never
existed!!

Symbolic events that are incorporated in masturbatory fantasies and
activities become closely associated with sexual excitement and this
association will foster expectations of great rewarding sensations
from acting out the callous, coercive actions that initially had
symbolic character only.
-------------------------
Now you're just blathering. I'm getting really tired of you not
grasping the REASONS behind the critique of these VERY NON-Scientific
studies and their absolutely Anti-Scientific inferred conclusions.

And if you're REALLY STUPID you will now imagine that the rules of
Science are unnecessarily stringent, JUSt because your PREFERENCES and
DELUSIONS won't meet their requirements! But you would be WRONG! This
REALLY IS what you have to consider in trying to determine Truth
by the research!


Pornography in this context, provides the material for fantasies that
easily come to mind at later time and then constitute the takeoff for
personal fantasies that are similar in kind. It thus guides imagery,
imagination, fantasies, and expectations.
---------------------------
In other words it feeds future fantasies!! Do we fear fiction because
it "guides imagery, fantasies, and expectations"???? Nonsense. People
who aren't nuts know the difference, and people who don't are already
nuts anyway!!


Sequentially, exposure to
external aggressive sexual imagery increases the probability of
engaging in overt coercive behavior.
Koss (1987)
------------------------------
That statement does NOT EVEN FOLLOW from their data!!

That's not Science, that's GARBAGE!
Steve

TomBa ++ wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote in
:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:43:17 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:00:23 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:56:23 +0930, David Simpson
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:00:51 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:40:25 -0700, MrEd
wrote:


When somebody posts a message that is counter the purpose of the
group,

Is the purpose of this group for you to propagate stories about
kidnapping and raping toddlers then?

No!

So there are *some* levels of depravity that you actually consider
beyond the pale?
------------------
You're LYING again. What YOU'RE ACTUALLY objecting to is that which
we do NOT consider "depravity", only YOU do!

You don't consider glorifying the abduction,torture and rape of
toddlers in diapers depraved?
--------------------------
Sure,

Thank you

The acts are depraved. Thoughts of such acts aren't. Unless, of course, you
believe a thought is the same as an act?



and if you limited yourself to that you'd have no audience,
because everyone would agree with you. That's why you won't DO THAT!

That is not the case. Sadly there are advocates for the production and
consumption of such at claim it as their "right".

Production and consumption are separate issues. In the Intrnet environment
where volumes of material are freely availble (i.e. without charge), it is
ludicrous to claim that consumption causes production. Those that produce
and post these images that you abhore are not doing it for financial gain
from the consumers. This may have been so when images were sold through
magazines or mailorder and the producer obtained payment.

There are other, darker, reasons why some people produce and distrubute
images of abusive acts, but satisfying the "consumer" is not one.
Penalizing the consumer will have no effect upon such productions.

Of course you have sipped the groups where folk support it
and your right to masturbate to it.

The materials people chose to masturbate to isn't a "right," nor is it a
wrong. It is simply a choice that causes no harm to others.

You may not find other's choice to be stimulating to yourself, but that
doesn't confer rightousness upon your decision.

What do you masturbate to? Is it "right?" It may very well be right for
you, but does that mean everyone else has to accept your proclamation of
what is "right" for themselves?

Do you have the "right" to approve of what somebody, in their privacy,
masturbates to? Can you show a causal relation of harm to the subjects of
images from the private activities of a masturbator?


You're trying to damn what we like

You like masturbating to images of infant rape and torture?
-------------------------------
No.

Thank you

Since you don't like this activity, is it "wrong" for everyone else?

But that's never all you're talking about, and you know it.


It's what I am talking about here.

I thought you were talking about masturbation materials... and which are
"right" and which are "wrong."

Could it be that you were talking about the rightness or wrongfulness of
masturbation and using the materials as a shield?


by pretending it's the same as what we don't, when they're
quite diametrically opposed, and when **** like YOU are most likely to
do those truly horrible things, and NOT US!

I don't know who your "we" might be but aligning yourself blindly with
this despicable creature and his hideous sadistic child pornography is
noted.
------------------------------
I have no proof of any such thing. All I see is words.

I doubt you will believe it of course,but his "art" would even sicken
you to the core.

I believe that *you* are sickened to the core ...
--------------
I'm not Brandon. Pay attention to the attribute indents!!
Steve


but that doesn't mean
that everyone else has to be likewise sickened. If *you* don't like looking
at certain images, then *you* don't have to look at them. Don't presume
that all others should likewise be sickened by what *you* are made ill
by...

(Hint: this is called tolerance. Give it a try, and your blood pressure
will drop by 20 points!)

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:26:37 GMT, "TomBa +NP-f36+"
wrote:
[]
sadistic child pornography is totally and utterly defenseless.
------------------------
Sadistic, sure. But it isn't wrong, it's not real.


Anyone who is not sickened by sadistic child pornography should not be
on the street.
------------------
Sadistic, sure. Consensual, no.


neither
adults having sex with children ,nor the production and transmission
of images and videos of these crimes are ever going to be tolerated.
---------------------
You're fooling yourself.
Steve

Brandon D Cartwright wrote in
:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:26:37 GMT, "TomBa +NP-f36+"
wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote in
m:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:43:17 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:00:23 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:56:23 +0930, David Simpson
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:00:51 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:40:25 -0700, MrEd
wrote:


When somebody posts a message that is counter the purpose of
the group,

Is the purpose of this group for you to propagate stories
about kidnapping and raping toddlers then?

No!

So there are *some* levels of depravity that you actually
consider beyond the pale?
------------------
You're LYING again. What YOU'RE ACTUALLY objecting to is that
which we do NOT consider "depravity", only YOU do!

You don't consider glorifying the abduction,torture and rape of
toddlers in diapers depraved?
--------------------------
Sure,

Thank you

The acts are depraved. Thoughts of such acts aren't. Unless, of
course, you believe a thought is the same as an act?

The production and/or dissemination of such is depraved .

deprave
to make someone evil or morally corrupt.

The production of KP are recordings of a depraved act, carried out by the
producer. Dissemination and free consumption of such material does not
*cause* depravity.






and if you limited yourself to that you'd have no audience,
because everyone would agree with you. That's why you won't DO THAT!

That is not the case. Sadly there are advocates for the production
and consumption of such at claim it as their "right".

Production and consumption are separate issues. In the Intrnet
environment where volumes of material are freely availble (i.e.
without charge), it is ludicrous to claim that consumption causes
production. Those that produce and post these images that you abhore
are not doing it for financial gain from the consumers. This may have
been so when images were sold through magazines or mailorder and the
producer obtained payment.

So lets us say, for example, that you were distributing videos of
adults having sex with children using the Internet.

Why, for exanple, would I (hypothetically) be inclined to distribute such
material? I wouldn't expect to obtain any financial gain from my efforts.

Would you not think your actions depraved and needing to be stopped?

No, and no.


There are other, darker, reasons why some people produce and
distrubute images of abusive acts, but satisfying the "consumer" is
not one. Penalizing the consumer will have no effect upon such
productions.

As you point out,on the Internet the consumer and producer are often
one and the same exchanging videos of the horrors they perpetrate.

I didn't point that out, but admit that it may be true in a minority of
cases. But, I lay the cupability upon the producer, not the consumer,
even when the lines are crossed by exchanges.

What would you do when in the case of webcams, the producer and "victim"
are one and the same...

Do you not think those that do this should be stopped?

Production should be stopped. Production is a clear record of abuse being
perpetuated against the child, and stopping production would hopefully
stop the abuse.

Are yo aware of cases where ongoing production was posted on these
newsgroups, and members provided assistance to locate and terminate these
activities? Google on "Woody" and "Homeanone" if you need details.





Of course you have sipped the groups where folk support it
and your right to masturbate to it.

The materials people chose to masturbate to isn't a "right," nor is it
a wrong. It is simply a choice that causes no harm to others.

You may not find other's choice to be stimulating to yourself, but
that doesn't confer rightousness upon your decision.

What do you masturbate to? Is it "right?" It may very well be right
for you, but does that mean everyone else has to accept your
proclamation of what is "right" for themselves?

Do you have the "right" to approve of what somebody, in their privacy,
masturbates to? Can you show a causal relation of harm to the subjects
of images from the private activities of a masturbator?


http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm

There is nothing on this website that shows causal relationship. They do
provide lots of correlations, but that's not the same as causation.

Where is the magic link that makes a subject "re-victimized" every time
somebody sees a picture?


Federal Bureau of Investigation
Research conducted involving 36 serial murderers revealed that 81%
(29/36) reported pornography as one of their highest sexual interests,
making pornography one of the most common profile characteristics of
serial murderers.

Dr. William Marshall (1983)
He found that 86% of rapists admitted regular use of pornography, with
57% admitting actual imitation of pornography scenes in commission of
sex crimes.

Malamuth (1981)
Responses found to characterize (convicted) rapists we
1) general acceptance of rape myths, and

2) high arousal to rape depictions.

He studied male college students, asking them, "How likely would you
be to rape if you knew you would not be caught?" --35% indicated they
would.

Malamuth and Check (1985)
After studying 307 students, they concluded that "media depictions
(pornography) suggesting that (showing that) rape results in the
victim's arousal contributes to men's belief in a similar rape myth --
particularly men with higher inclinations to aggress against women."
Victor Cline, Ph.D. (Utah Psychologist)
He identified a common pattern of progression with many pornography
users (sex offenders):
1. addiction to hard core pornography;

2. escalation in the need for more shocking material;

3. desensitization toward initially shocking material; and

4. an increased tendency to "act out" sexual activities


Where's the causual link?



You're trying to damn what we like

You like masturbating to images of infant rape and torture?
-------------------------------
No.

Thank you

Since you don't like this activity, is it "wrong" for everyone else?

But that's never all you're talking about, and you know it.


It's what I am talking about here.

I thought you were talking about masturbation materials... and which
are "right" and which are "wrong."

No I am talking of the production and dissemination of child
pornography.

Unlike you I feel it is wrong per se . Period.

You are entitled to your opinions.

sadistic child pornography is totally and utterly defenseless.

Child abuse is totally wrong and defensless. Pictures are neither.



Could it be that you were talking about the rightness or wrongfulness
of masturbation and using the materials as a shield?


by pretending it's the same as what we don't, when they're
quite diametrically opposed, and when **** like YOU are most
likely to do those truly horrible things, and NOT US!

I don't know who your "we" might be but aligning yourself blindly
with this despicable creature and his hideous sadistic child
pornography is noted.
------------------------------
I have no proof of any such thing. All I see is words.

I doubt you will believe it of course,but his "art" would even
sicken you to the core.

I believe that *you* are sickened to the core ... but that doesn't
mean that everyone else has to be likewise sickened. If *you* don't
like looking at certain images, then *you* don't have to look at them.
Don't presume that all others should likewise be sickened by what
*you* are made ill by...

Anyone who is not sickened by sadistic child pornography should not be
on the street.
Anyone who is not sickened by child abuse should not be on the street. If
pictures make you ill, then don't look at them...


(Hint: this is called tolerance. Give it a try, and your blood
pressure will drop by 20 points!)

Get used to it.
Whatever you and fellow deviates may tell each other,neither
adults having sex with children ,nor the production and transmission
of images and videos of these crimes are ever going to be tolerated.
Those are three distinct issues. Don't lump them under one moralistic
umbrella.

--
TomBa NP-f36