-
Posts
-
omg… just heard on ITV news about the scale of 1 to 5 of child abuse. over 60% of child abuse is a 4 to 5. it means internal abuse and/or se/x.
This is really disturbing.
@ubermik wrote:
@~Pebbles~ wrote:
You might say that viewing the images is not as punishable as actually committing the offence but Paedophiles viewing images creates a demand which encourages others to continue abusing and hurting children.
Well you COULD say that, but you could also say that apples are purple with pink stripes and that the moon is made out of lego but they wouldnt be true either
Do you REALLY think that a paedophile is created merely because theres a demand for viewing such tripe? That a non perverted hetrosexual realises that people want to watch kids being molested and THAT “makes” them become a paedo? Do you?
That arguement holds water with crimes such as receiving stolen goods, but is as water retentive as a sieve where crimes like this are the topic
@~Pebbles~ wrote:
There is no excuse for downloading and viewing images of child sex abuse
Well no “excuse” as such, on that I agree, but I also would wonder how many people who are for whatever reason turned on by this kind of stuff can get all the kicks they require from such files meaning they wont then actively add to the amount of people actually physically molesting?
Its perhaps a similar arguement to ones based around the fact that the countries with the most stringent anti prostitution laws have the highest amounts of rapes and the ones with the more lapse ones or legalised prosititution tend to have the lowest amount of rapes
We will never remove such an urge within people and detecting them before they act on the impulse is hard and often impossible so perhaps the law might be more effectively frozen for lets say offences involving over 12’s and toughened and more focused on concerning younger kids as they are not only the ones more traumatised but are also the ones who are more vulnerable and are more easily intimidated into silence.
@~Pebbles~ wrote:
I read somewhere that he was actually abused as a child himself, its often the case that abused people go on to abuse themselves.
So youre saying he is actually a victim rather than a perpetrator then?[/quote]
You really are a sick individual if you think viewing child por/n is acceptable, this added to your maddie post is more than enough for most people to see you for the pervert that you are
@dead_on_arrvial wrote:
In peoples minds there no different between the two.
The suspicion is always there.
In case Chris Langham his life is over for what the law see has a minor crime.
There are worst cases such has people sexily abusing adults with a menial age of 8 or 9 who are not cover by the current law, but I feel they should be.
I know a lot of broadband companies ban them (child po/rn sites) and do not allow access to them
Pebbels did your read your broadband contract or just go for the free “dancing frog”?
It’s in the small print Pebbels under “Access to unacceptable material”
no Doa , i didnt need to read up on the “access to child por/n sites” memo given that i have no intention whatsoever of accessing any.
@sharongooner wrote:
yawn yawn yawn bla bla bla.
They were your words not mine.
Very bored with this now but you seem to feel the need to defend it at every opportunity.
yawn yawn yawn bla bla bla.
ps. Im pissed off with having to scroll down so many pages when people quote your posts for replies… can you just stick to facts rather than bullHot Chocolate.
Everybody else seems to manage
yawn yawn yawn
shaz the sick t wat can attempt to cover it up all he likes, we all saw what he said, hes a waste of space
@sharongooner wrote:
omg… just heard on ITV news about the scale of 1 to 5 of child abuse. over 60% of child abuse is a 4 to 5. it means internal abuse and/or se/x.
This is really disturbing.
Well it shouldnt really be that disturbing as common sense should surely have made that a fairly predictable result anyway, plus it wouldnt be so fervently made public knowledge if the results were anything less as the aim is to exploit the predictable disturbingness (is that a real word?) of it
Chances are 95%+ is on the scale around 1 and 2, but will be so trivial, unimpactive and rarely even discovered that its existence wont be known and cant therefore be included in such weighted studies
But the higher up the scale something is the more chance that it will be discovered and as only the discovered instances can be used to plot a frequency graph the outcome of the graph is pretty much a foregone conclusion
And with pretty much everyday being a bad news day for the government at the moment some pretty hefty distractions are needed to draw interest and effort away from them so things like this are often compiled and then shelved so they can be presented when such distractions are needed although even that sometimes backfires
One that was done about 5 years ago lasted a totaly of just under 18 hours on a government website before being removed due to the public backlash as it showed that all forms of child abuse from sexual to neglect were done to varying amounts by women more than men of which I think violent abuse was the largest difference
But as most single parents (Which we have an epidemic of) are women, and as even in a relationship women still do most of the childrearing that doesnt show anything more shocking than more women spend more time with kids than men and that women are human too and therefore are affected by the same pressures and stresses as men rather than it “depicting women in an unfair and bad light” as it was claimed
Studies can and do say what the person conducting the study wants, or is told to make them say
Sometimes by very meticulously careful collecting of quite deliberate data from specific sources and othertimes merely because the realities of society mean they will yield a particular result but they arent any more acurate or conclusive irrespective of the reason a conclusion is “discovered” (or created)
@~Pebbles~ wrote:
@ubermik wrote:
@~Pebbles~ wrote:
You might say that viewing the images is not as punishable as actually committing the offence but Paedophiles viewing images creates a demand which encourages others to continue abusing and hurting children.
Well you COULD say that, but you could also say that apples are purple with pink stripes and that the moon is made out of lego but they wouldnt be true either
Do you REALLY think that a paedophile is created merely because theres a demand for viewing such tripe? That a non perverted hetrosexual realises that people want to watch kids being molested and THAT “makes” them become a paedo? Do you?
That arguement holds water with crimes such as receiving stolen goods, but is as water retentive as a sieve where crimes like this are the topic
@~Pebbles~ wrote:
There is no excuse for downloading and viewing images of child sex abuse
Well no “excuse” as such, on that I agree, but I also would wonder how many people who are for whatever reason turned on by this kind of stuff can get all the kicks they require from such files meaning they wont then actively add to the amount of people actually physically molesting?
Its perhaps a similar arguement to ones based around the fact that the countries with the most stringent anti prostitution laws have the highest amounts of rapes and the ones with the more lapse ones or legalised prosititution tend to have the lowest amount of rapes
We will never remove such an urge within people and detecting them before they act on the impulse is hard and often impossible so perhaps the law might be more effectively frozen for lets say offences involving over 12’s and toughened and more focused on concerning younger kids as they are not only the ones more traumatised but are also the ones who are more vulnerable and are more easily intimidated into silence.
@~Pebbles~ wrote:
I read somewhere that he was actually abused as a child himself, its often the case that abused people go on to abuse themselves.
So youre saying he is actually a victim rather than a perpetrator then?
You really are a sick individual if you think viewing child por/n is acceptable, this added to your maddie post is more than enough for most people to see you for the pervert that you are[/quote]
And yet from where I’m sitting your response just seems to show that either your grasp of the english language is quite poor with sentences longer than 10 words or that concepts delivered in a style more complex than a peter and jane book confuse you, or simply that you prefer to read what you want to have been written rather than what is actually written
Go figure eh? :lol:
………….and of course you would know.
@sharongooner wrote:
………….and of course you would know.
PMSL.
Touchéé, fiar cop guvnor(ess) :lol: :lol:
:oops:
uber just because you have a bad case of verbal diarrhea doesnt mean the rest of us have to suffer with the same affliction.
Most of us manage to get our point across in a short sharp fashion, maybe you should try it instead of boring everyone to tears with your lengthly unintersting drivel.
@~Pebbles~ wrote:
uber just because you have a bad case of verbal diarrhea doesnt mean the rest of us have to suffer with the same affliction.
Most of us manage to get our point across in a short sharp fashion, maybe you should try it instead of boring everyone to tears with your lengthly unintersting drivel.
I tried that and you havent stopped whinging about it since lol
Serious question tho pebbly, how is your admittedly far more concise but wholly inacurate and illogical drivel boring people in anyway “better”? Coz I really cant see the point your totally failing to make at all
You prefer things dumbed down so even a retarded 8 year old could grasp the vaccuousness of the point and other people dont, niether is right nor wrong just different
And you can whinge and whine about it as much as you like but I can wholeheartedly assure you nothing will change as it hasnt done in the last 20 years I’ve been using online discussion forums so it sort of begs the questions of a) what enjoyment do you actually get out of posting the exact same whinge over and over again, and b) why havent you managed to figure out you can just copy it and keep pasting it instead of typing it out each time? lol :P
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!