Photobucket
My Photo

Tip Jar

Support Blog

Tip Jar

Official Second Life Blog

EngageDigital

« Novotar: The Diver is Missing... | Main | Traffic Report »

May 20, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cfe069e200d83545096c53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Pedophiles Are Responsible:

Comments

BLueRibbon

I haven't seen any rules about it being necessary to have an SL name. Are you just unable to debate with me in a coherent manner?

"So? One percent is too many. Lower statistical returns don't rescue the intellectual proposition here -- that just because 'not everybody' or 'not many' connect between child porn and simulation and actual child molestation doesn't mean it's sustainable as a proposition. It isn't. It's still wrong."

If the figure were one percent then it would be pretty obvious that possession of child pornography very rarely causes people to engage in sexual activity with a child. In fact, it suggests that, considering the amount of people who have been arrested for possessing CP as a sexual outlet to prevent them abusing children, CP probably reduces the frequency of acts of child abuse.

"It would be like saying, "Only 30 percent of the people who go over the speed limit of 70 die in car crashes, so therefore, we don't really need the speed limit, because 70 percent of the people don't die.""

I think you miss the point. Many paedophiles have used CP to relieve to their urges without molesting a child, so just because it causes some paedophiles to molest, it doesn't mean that it leads to a higher rate of child molestation.

"Gosh, calling the police "LE" and calling *child pornography" "CP" must really dumb it down and render it meaningless in your little pedophiles' chat groups, eh? That's pretty retarded. It's like saying "all these people who died going over 65 didn't really die because they were speeding, so we don't need a speed limit"."

It should be obvious that harm to children through child pornography will be caused by production, distrubution and purchase. There is no mechanism for possession to harm a child, which is why I feel that possession should not be illegal.

Using acronyms means nothing. I have other debates to deal with and I can't spend forever debating here. Acronyms allow me to type less; that's why I use them.

"People use pornography when they can't get the real thing, or when they can, but it's not fully as satisfying as the perfection of pornography. They move from pornography to the real thing when they get the chance."

But a heterosexual wouldn't be hurting a child if they moved from pornography to the real thing. Paedophiles would, which is an obvious reason for paedophiles to NOT move to the real thing. Don't try to relate how you act on your fantasies to how paedophiles act on their fantasies, because you just do not have to consider the moral, social and legal issues that paedophiles must consider.

"People with normal sexual appetites that do not involve children move from pornography when they can, and there's no reason to expect that pedophiles, who are already concealing something and justifying their criminal inclinations, are going to restrain themselves more than anyone else."

As I have already stated, "normal" people do NOT need to restrain themselves. Paedophiles DO need to restrain themselves. If you were a paedophile, would you not restrain yourself more than you do now?

"We have no studies to demonstrate that creating these purported "non-abusive outlets for pedophiles" are somehow legitimate. None."

Nor do you have evidence to the absolute contrary, but you still wish to see it banned.

"I have no reason to believe that pedophiles are "intelligent" enough. There are many reasons to believe they may have profound psychological disturbances."

There are studies linked at the "Paedophilia" Wikipedia article which investigated your "belief" and found that paedophiles are generally slightly more intelligent, but do not have such psychological disturbances. Any "disturbance" is likely caused by the way in which paedophiles are treated by society regardless of what they say or do.

"There is every reason to believe that they will lie, manipulative, and distract in their argumentation as we can see them doing now all over the forums"

I'm sorry, but where have you seen this behaviour occur?

"They are heavily motivated to distract, minimize, and deceive about this shameful practice."

Paedophilia is not a practice. It is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.

"I don't get why I'm supposed to trust a pedophile; a pedophile thinks it's ok to have sex with children, but the only thing stopping them is the fear of criminal prosecution."

Thanks, that's kind. I have the same opinion of adult-child sex as most people; I disagree with it.

Have you read my site? One of the main reasons I set it up is to create a paedophile activist resource which doesn't support sex between adults and children.

"I don't believe in pedophiles' rights. I don't believe in the right to crime. I don't think that I need to form a support group for pedophiles in SL. I think that pedophilia is rightfully criminalized in real life, and should remain so."

As I have already stated, paedophilia is a sexual attraction and not a crime. Do you not believe in the rights of minor-attracted people to be safe from attack and persecution, even when they don't abuse children?

"I do believe the virtual and real are very much connected."

I've noticed.

"Yes, that's what I would do. I'd have to do that, given that pedophilia is indefensible, intellectually, morally, spiritually, legally."

You're wrong about your legal definition of paedophilia, but I've already explained that. What I find disturbing about you is that you're not bothered about child abuse, you're merely averted to paedophilia. You have just agreed that you would support a world which was nastier towards paedophiles, but would probably have a harmful effect on children.

"I realize that it's the hallmark of trained propagandists to try to turn someone willing to take a stand against their odious cause against their own cause, by trying to appeal to their sense of altruism, to their sense of wishing to resist "hyprokisy". However, I'm schooled in resisting that and I can see that train coming down the tracks from miles away."

'Training' in propaganda? I'm just a guy who doesn't accept the persecution of people of my orientation. Do you think we have a 'Paedophile Propaganda Camp?'

"People are so busy trying to save the First Amendment"

I'm not even from the USA.

"This is another common propaganda technique commonly used in totalitarian movements all over the world"

I find this statement somewhat ironic and hypocritical. Are you aware of why it seems odd when paedophiles are the minority who are being attacked?

"Then...10 minutes later, he's trying to break that down in a very sinister argumentation method. Now he's saying, oh, I don't think you really care about harming people, about the law, or about what's wrong, you care only about your own moral rectitude.

Um, noooooo I care about harm to children and the law. Remember? That thing you claimed YOU were for up above when you were trying to let us know what a great law-abiding citizien you were?"

Umm, you're confusing posts between me an another poster.

"And now, this self-professed pedophile, is going to play another trick out of the propagandists' book, honed in chat groups and support networks, which works like this: "You think I'm a beast? Well, you're just like me. You are running from the same urges".

Except...we aren't. We're not the pedophiles. You are. So let's not mix it up here, please. We don't want to have sex with children. You do. Keep a focus here.

>'mon, from the comments all over the blogosphere one can see that there is a group of ppl so clean and straight that snowflake is like dirty bitsh from hell compared to them.

A person like me or anyone criticizing pedophilia need not be perfect. They need not be snowflakes. They need not be free of sin. They need merely to affirm that pedophilia is morally and legally wrong. Which is what this poster claimed to affirm up top, 10 minutes ago, remember?"

As above, you should read who posts what.

"We don't want to have sex with children. You do. Keep a focus here."

That is a lie. I like the idea of sex with children, but I don't want to act on that, for the reasons mentioned previously.

Please answer one question for me. Are you averted primarily to paedophilia (an attraction to pre-pubescent children), or are you more offended by child abuse? I feel the answer should be obvious to most people, but I'm really not sure of what you think.

Cocoanut Koala

GAAAAAAAAA!!!!

coco

Prokofy Neva

Prok, you are crossing the line between judging people for what they do and judging them for what they think.

ROFL. But that line is more than fine to cross? There's no rule against judging people. Judgement is a good thing. If we didn't have judgement, our brains would fall out of our heads. Judging is crucial to do in the marketplace of ideas, in a free society. Judging isn't banning or barring or censoring. But it's judging.

You judge Bush for thinking he can win this war, do you not? You judge people who hate homosexuals, do you not? Of course you do. And so do I. And I also judge pedophiles. I don't think they are right. And I condemn them. And that's more than fine to do.

>You are doing that based on the assumption that if they think it, then they will do it. Others have already commented on that and I totally agree with them that it is unacceptable to discriminate against people based on what they think.

Well, I used to think I could keep my rentals open to all based on the concept of the privace and sanctity of the home, that if you abide by the TOS and abide by the typical rental rule that you can't go over the prim limits so as not to take from others, that was all you needed.

Except, that was before I began to grasp that pedophiles were using SL to blur the moral lines, before I realized that Germany had a law against even virtual porn, and before I saw that the Lindens were banning it, and that

So yes, indeed, I will "discriminate" against the pedophiles who call themselves "ageplayers". They'll have other rentals to go to -- or not. I don't think it's discrimination to avoid a climate of impunity and enabling environment that sets up danger to children, sets up me for prosecution, and sets up other customers for prosecution. No thanks!

Pedophiles will not be discriminated for what they *think* because I'm not a mindreader. They will be barred for acting out their thoughts with ingame "play" and pictures on their wall. Those are acts. Those are acts that a) are crimes in some districts and b) create a climate of impunity and erosion of the barrier against child molestation which I'm simply not willing to take part in.

>although "thinking" racist thoughts is not illegal, promoting racism is illegal even if no minorities are immediately and directly hurt.

This is another propagandists' trick. Take something everyone can agree with, like hate speech about minorities, then suddenly do a bait and switch and put in your pedophile controversy.

>But are the practice and promotion of age-playing a promotion of pedophilia?

Yes they are. They are indulging in the erosion of the lines between what is permissible, and what is not, creating a climate of justification and impunity.

>I can understand a gut reaction saying that they are, but we need more evidence towards that before discriminating against anyone in SL.

You know? I'm going to go on my gut with this one. If it walks like a duck, it's a duck. The German police think it's a duck, and so does LL.

>And it is indeed discrimination if age-players are not allowed to organize themselves in SL.

LL is free to take whatever hippie laissez faire position they like, when they worm their way out of the blurryness they've left in the distinction between the ban for those caught with RL pornography, and the confusion some find around this (because it's not clear if they did have this porn, and were merely "ageplayers").

I simply don't wish to rent to people engaged in this activity. I don't rent to casinos, either, and didn't long before there was a ban on advertising of casinos. I think a seris of voluntary decisions like this by a variety of communities in SL is what is needed. I think the pedophiles and their geek friends and tekkie extremists can go make them their own online host-your-own game where they can fight their own battles with regulatory powers.

>As for what is natural or unnatural attraction, there is very little in human sexuality that really qualifies as "natural". Otherwise, we should ban all fetishes and sex should consist only in males having 15-second copulations with every female that is ovulating. So let's not use the "unnatural attraction" argument in deciding what is right or what is wrong.

The term here is meant simply: it's unnatural to wish to have sex with children because one should not have sex with innocent beings not yet reached the age of sexual maturity able to make a choice to say "yes or no," and to understand fully what is happening to them.

Sure, there's a wild variety of human sexual expression. But I don't see why we have to celebrate pedophilia along with wildness and wackyness of all sorts that is with consenting adults. The "consenting adults" who engage in pedophilia in SL are justifying the act of pedophilia in their enactment, and that's highly troubling and leads to a climate of impunity.

I make the same distinctinos about violence and coercion in BDSM as well.

>A message to age-players though: it might help if you would condemn sex between adults and children in RL, besides just pointing out that age-playing is not that.

Yes, excellent point. We never see the 'ageplayers' do that because of course, they are campaigning to legitimize the practice!

Prokofy Neva

>I haven't seen any rules about it being necessary to have an SL name. Are you just unable to debate with me in a coherent manner?

Rolls eyes. You must have a Second Life or real life name to post on this blog. That's a rule that posters know here, it's not dreamed up for you, it's a rule to promote accountability if nowhere else at least in the virtual world. Bye Blue Ribbon.

I'm going to answer each one of these bad argumentations precisely to put some markers down in this debate where I'm seeing so much bad thinking and propaganda.

>can you allow blockquote tag. This is becoming a bit hard to read.

Typical of the petulant and demanding pedophile type in whom power relations and infantilism are perverted.

>Ok, now back to the children.

No, stay away from them.

>Sure, one case of child abuse is too many. But that does not make a right to do counter-abuse. Seems like you have been reading propaganda handbooks too.

I don't see anything abusive whatsoever about barring pedophilia in any form, real or virtual, from Second Life. It's just good business sense, makes for a better environment where in fact not so much intrusion and policing is necessary when there is an easily determined "0 tolerance rule" and makes for a better world.

I would suggest that finding venture capitalists for Pedo World might be rather hard to do.

>I am very interested in how you or anybody else is going to find out what are two people are playing. You will hack into their IM's? You will listen and watch what is going on their land. Don't forget that private land is private. I hope I don't need to remind you that you were the one to assert so when shepherd was introduced.

I don't think you have to be a rocket science to read people's profiles, see their groups, and see what they put out on their walls.

It's a feature of SL when you land on a sim, all the pictures on the wall rez before the building walls.

I don't think I need to go zooming around to each and every tenant. I can ban it, and they can go elsewhere. That's my right on my land. Furthemore, if I find it, I evict them. I expect compliance, and I expect to reach as close to full compliance as I can get. I don't throw up my hands in despair and say OMG I can't possibly get at anything, therefore I should do nothing. Of course not.

>Using potential crime to spy on residents/citizens is forbidden in U.S. , Europe and in all other democratic countries.

Good luck mounting a case against Linden Lab, or any rental agent in Second Life, that they invaded privacy by discovering your pedophilia, and expelling you, and violated your rights.

Like Bragg, who stole a sim and then tried to get the Lindens to let him keep his non-stolen funds, many will weep crocodile tears over this one.

If the figure were one percent then it would be pretty obvious that possession of child pornography very rarely causes people to engage in sexual activity with a child. In fact, it suggests that, considering the amount of people who have been arrested for possessing CP as a sexual outlet to prevent them abusing children, CP probably reduces the frequency of acts of child abuse.

I don't think we have any studies proving that in fact that's the case, that's merely the pedophiles' supposition. Perhaps there are not very thorough studies based on the connection between *child pornography in which children are harmed* and actual harm, but that recalls another sobering problem with this lightness of the poster to "CP" -- anyone who consumes child pornography is creating a market for the services of child pornographers who exploit children and put them in these pictures. And that's wrong.

A person who uses child pornography and says he is engaging in a victimless crime and staying at home and not hurting anybody is forgetting that he is contributing to the sex trafficking of children who made the pornography in the first place.

>I think you miss the point. Many paedophiles have used CP to relieve to their urges without molesting a child, so just because it causes some paedophiles to molest, it doesn't mean that it leads to a higher rate of child molestation.

If it causes *any* to molest, that is reason to ban it. It *is* banned from Internet sites. It *is* the subject of police raids. It *is* banned in SL. ANd that's all good.

>It should be obvious that harm to children through child pornography will be caused by production, distrubution and purchase. There is no mechanism for possession to harm a child, which is why I feel that possession should not be illegal.

This really beats all for specious reasoning. It's like saying drug possession is no crime at all. There'd be no market for drugs and no transport of drugs, which are illegal, if there were no desire for possession and possession which is obviously related to USING.

The idea that the possessor of child pornography -- the user! -- is somehow sanitized and removed from the whole ugly chain of child pornography, with its exploitation violation of import laws, and purveying of pornography, is just ludicruous. The users are the engines of the whole sinister system.

>Using acronyms means nothing. I have other debates to deal with and I can't spend forever debating here. Acronyms allow me to type less; that's why I use them.

Acronyms distract from the severity of the word's connotations -- common technique.

>But a heterosexual wouldn't be hurting a child if they moved from pornography to the real thing. Paedophiles would, which is an obvious reason for paedophiles to NOT move to the real thing.

We have no grounds to believe that whatsoever, and we shouldnt' be taking a pedophile's words for it, he's the fox in the chicken coop. If adult-oriented people go from pornography to reality, then pedophiles have just as much motivation as well, and none of the breaks on their activities we'd expect, since they must constantly dull their conscience and convince themselves that they and their desires are "ok" -- and that means they have every reason to lie about what they are doing.

"They lie," is what the police officer said about them, matter-of-factly.

>Don't try to relate how you act on your fantasies to how paedophiles act on their fantasies, because you just do not have to consider the moral, social and legal issues that paedophiles must consider.

I have no grounds to believe that a person who has already broken the moral code for himself and does not seek to end his immorality is now someone who can be trusted to "consider moral and social" issues with any appropriateness. None whatsoever.
It's like leaving the alcoholic with the liquor cabinet.

>As I have already stated, "normal" people do NOT need to restrain themselves. Paedophiles DO need to restrain themselves. If you were a paedophile, would you not restrain yourself more than you do now?

A pedophile already doesn't restrain himself by giving himself absolution for his actions and dulling his conscience, strenuously trying to justify what he does with himself and others -- the Internet chat room support group justifying what he does. I don't wish to leave a person in self-justification and conscience-dulling mode to make determinations about how he will or won't be restraining himself.

>Nor do you have evidence to the absolute contrary, but you still wish to see it banned.

We don't need "absolute" contrary, there's enough of a link to give all kinds of educators, doctors, lawyers, and police, very much concern, and that's adequate for me.

After all, they're motivated by protecting children and keeping them safe. You're motivated by the desire to have sex with children. Which set of people do you think I will believe? My God, this is just ridiculous that it would even have to come to arguing this.

>There are studies linked at the "Paedophilia" Wikipedia article which investigated your "belief" and found that paedophiles are generally slightly more intelligent, but do not have such psychological disturbances.

Wikipedia and Pedopedia -- these are not going to be sources for me whatsoever. Even within the wacky world of Wikipedia, the pedophilia chapters have warnings posted that they do not meet the standards for research and accuracy.

>Any "disturbance" is likely caused by the way in which paedophiles are treated by society regardless of what they say or do.

Yep, distract and dissemble, away from the fact that pedophiles are people who want to have sex with children, and displace the attention to the "victims" of "discrimination". No sale.

>I'm sorry, but where have you seen this behaviour occur?

All over the Internet. The Times was a particularly good summary of the chat rooms of pedophiles; the Herald and every other SL discussion around this are minefields full of pedophiles justifying themselves.

>Paedophilia is not a practice. It is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.

It's a sexual attraction that seeks to practice without getting caught, or to lull society into thinking that it is justified. It is a movement that is now working overtime to remove the taboos.

>Thanks, that's kind. I have the same opinion of adult-child sex as most people; I disagree with it.

That's not true. Your believe that simulating it is ok, and that erodes the moral distinctions.

>Have you read my site? One of the main reasons I set it up is to create a paedophile activist resource which doesn't support sex between adults and children.

I couldn't support such a fundamental lie, that seeks to distract from the essential wrongfulness of pedophilia by creating the rues that there are "safe" forms of it.

This reminds me of the sort of hogwash you read from people who suddenly declare they have a bad back and need "medical marijuana" as an excuse to get weed legally.

>As I have already stated, paedophilia is a sexual attraction and not a crime.

No, pedophilia is a preference and a predilection that orients a person to commit a crime, because he does not see anything wrong with it at root; it's his desire.

It creates the possibility of harm for children, and must not be encouraged or sanctioned. It must be heartily discouraged.

>Do you not believe in the rights of minor-attracted people to be safe from attack and persecution, even when they don't abuse children?

This is a baiting question that is designed to turn ones' values against them.

I oppose pedophilia. I advocate discouraging pedophila, virtual or real. I expect that activist pedophiles will define up "persecution" to mean any criticism and any attempt to discourage and ban them, so I don't fall into the trap of saying "I oppose persecution of pedophiles" since the effort to discourage and criminalize them *is what they are calling persecution*.

What does it mean that "minor-attracted people" (dear God, is this like the "differently-abled"???) are to be safe from attack? Does this mean that I would advocate that they be arrested with due process and not lynch-mobbed? Yes, any criminal suspect should be arrested with due process.

>You're wrong about your legal definition of paedophilia, but I've already explained that.

I don't need to embark on a journey of trying to build out the lines of tolerance for "ageplay" in Second Life, because it's not my concern to extend pedophilia but retract it. I don't wish to permit it on my property. I support what LL has done to limit the exposure of pedophilia.

>What I find disturbing about you is that you're not bothered about child abuse, you're merely averted to paedophilia.

I'm concerned about Second Life, where in theory there aren't supposed to be children. I don't need to bend over backwards to prove my concern about child abuse to others in a virtual world -- that's for me to follow up in my own RL community. This is a discussion about Second Life and the ways in which virtual porn and pedophilia among "consenting adults". I refuse to be baited into some other self-justifying discussion.

>You have just agreed that you would support a world which was nastier towards paedophiles, but would probably have a harmful effect on children.

No, hardly. I've agreed on a discussion about Second Life and pushing back the overgrown pedophilia that has occurred in it, and restricting it severely to avoid harm to children and occasion for prosecution of adults, and discrediting of SL as a place that erodes the boundaries of morality. I didn't sign up for a comparison shop between which cause is more urgent to work on, nor conclude one is important and the other isn't therefore putatively "adding to the harm of children*. Rolls eyes.

Yes, the methods of propaganda are no different than any other group with an abusive and authoritarian agenda and I repudiate it.

"I realize that it's the hallmark of trained propagandists to try to turn someone willing to take a stand against their odious cause against their own cause, by trying to appeal to their sense of altruism, to their sense of wishing to resist "hyprokisy". However, I'm schooled in resisting that and I can see that train coming down the tracks from miles away."

'Training' in propaganda? I'm just a guy who doesn't accept the persecution of people of my orientation. Do you think we have a 'Paedophile Propaganda Camp?'

"People are so busy trying to save the First Amendment"

I'm not even from the USA.

"This is another common propaganda technique commonly used in totalitarian movements all over the world"

I find this statement somewhat ironic and hypocritical. Are you aware of why it seems odd when paedophiles are the minority who are being attacked?

"Then...10 minutes later, he's trying to break that down in a very sinister argumentation method. Now he's saying, oh, I don't think you really care about harming people, about the law, or about what's wrong, you care only about your own moral rectitude.

Um, noooooo I care about harm to children and the law. Remember? That thing you claimed YOU were for up above when you were trying to let us know what a great law-abiding citizien you were?"

Umm, you're confusing posts between me an another poster.

"And now, this self-professed pedophile, is going to play another trick out of the propagandists' book, honed in chat groups and support networks, which works like this: "You think I'm a beast? Well, you're just like me. You are running from the same urges".

Except...we aren't. We're not the pedophiles. You are. So let's not mix it up here, please. We don't want to have sex with children. You do. Keep a focus here.

>'mon, from the comments all over the blogosphere one can see that there is a group of ppl so clean and straight that snowflake is like dirty bitsh from hell compared to them.

A person like me or anyone criticizing pedophilia need not be perfect. They need not be snowflakes. They need not be free of sin. They need merely to affirm that pedophilia is morally and legally wrong. Which is what this poster claimed to affirm up top, 10 minutes ago, remember?"

As above, you should read who posts what.

"We don't want to have sex with children. You do. Keep a focus here."

That is a lie. I like the idea of sex with children, but I don't want to act on that, for the reasons mentioned previously.

Please answer one question for me. Are you averted primarily to paedophilia (an attraction to pre-pubescent children), or are you more offended by child abuse? I feel the answer should be obvious to most people, but I'm really not sure of what you think.

dandellion kimban

In today's episode of Second Thoughts: Prok demasquing all the techniques of subverzive propaganda. Bonus track: Prok demonstrating a brand new technique of writing in such an extension that hopefully everybody will quit reading his repetitive rants. As we finally got it, he is not about protecting children, not even against paedophilia but about keeping his business interest.

>A message to age-players though: it might help if you would condemn sex between adults and children in RL, besides just pointing out that age-playing is not that.

Well, we all did (including myself that is not age-player at all, but talking about thought-crime). But, Prok is to lazy to read even the names of perticipants not to mention what they say. Or is it another propaganda trick to allow himself to rant more about what serves his interests?

dandellion kimban

>>can you allow blockquote tag. This is becoming a bit hard to read.
>Typical of the petulant and demanding pedophile type in whom power relations and infantilism are perverted.

Now, you have really out of mind, right? Just look at what have you said. That can be symptom of paranoia, seeing conspiration and propaganda in everything. No, blockquotes are pretty normal thing all over the internet. Even straight people are using them. Or maybe you are trying to distract us with all those rolls of unbroken text? Just like you said: "Acronyms distract from the severity of the word's connotations -- common technique."

>>Ok, now back to the children.
>No, stay away from them.

You had something dirty in mind? Well, I haven't.

>Good luck mounting a case against Linden Lab, or any rental agent in Second Life, that they invaded privacy by discovering your pedophilia, and expelling you, and violated your rights.

Luckily, I won't be in that position. But, what I mention is one of the principles of the fair trial. Just as assumption of innocence is. You claimed against both of them today. What is to conclude from that?

Yumi Murakami

I'm quite surprised that you didn't mention the most obvious difference between simulated murder and simulated sex - the emotions involved.

Most people who engage in cybersex do it because it triggers feelings of sexual arousal in the real life player - the same feelings of sexual arousal that would come from having sex for real. On the other hand, people who engage in violence online do not do so in order to experience the same emotions that a violent person in real life would experience. That's why most people do not put their head in their hands and think "oh my god, what have I done" when they kill someone in a game; and why most real life murderers do not, after shooting or stabbing their victims, jump up and down shouting "OWNZORED."

A World of Warcraft player who walked around killing boars with an axe could technically do that in real life if they really wanted to, although it might be difficult to find one. It's not the stimulus that's the key difference, it's the emotional response.

Economic Mip

Well forgive my thoughts, but seriously Linden Labs had to come out with a better policy then "the card" which, sorry Chadwick didn't really do anything. There are so many points to disagree with, and perhaps this(http://www.news24.com/
News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,,2-11-1662
_1868032,00.html) is why I react so strongly on this issue.

First: "Thoughtcrime!" Um, no. Thought refers to things inside the mind of an individual. Now don't get me wrong, if you have these thoughts you should not act on them. But, if you bring these thoughts to life in an online setting, you should expect that the applicable laws of countries will be used. (And yes, the Virtual Task Force in the US has said before that they look for "grooming" within Second Life, as well as Warcraft, and practically any other online "world").

Seriously Chadwick, after the notecard I was half tempted to get World Vision in world with their anti-child-sex-tourism billboards.

dandellion kimban

Actually, thought-crime includes what two people are talking about between themselves.

Cocoanut Koala

"I think the pedophiles and their geek friends and tekkie extremists can go make them their own online host-your-own game where they can fight their own battles with regulatory powers."

Perzactly.

And . . . how can a person sit here with a straight face and claim he doesn't want to harm children while stating that his fantasies revolve around harming children?

This notion that continuing to fantasize about it in a "safe" environment actually reduces the impulse to act on the fantasy in real life is hogwash.

P.S. Reading on down - I see you also used the word "hogwash," haha.

Good job on this one, Prok. Takes some stomach to handle it, too. Brought him right out of the woodwork, didn't ya.

P.S. Right, Economic - people can think whatever they want, horrendous though it may be. When they act it out, even online with avatars, that's no longer thinking.

coco

Cocoanut Koala

P.S. Let me elaborate on that last comment of mine. If you and your significant other want to dress up in diapers or little pinafores and pretend that one of you is 12 in the privacy of your own bedroom, NO, I don't think you should be stopped. Ever.

But I think that's quite a bit different from in essence "drawing" child porn on a space such as SL.

coco

dandellion kimban

Now, when this whole story becomes pointless, would someone care to explain me what connects
> the pedophiles and their geek friends and tekkie extremists
?
Sounds too surrealistic to take that seriously....

dandellion kimban

@coco: what is "in essence "drawing" child porn"?
RL porn or using posebals with anims or those two making snapshots of themselves in diapers?

Barney Boomslang

Since there are lots (and I guess lots more will come) who think they have to counter your post, lets at least have my voice in here, too: I like your post. It's right on the spot.

It's really strange how people argue in defense of something like ageplay, where exactly what you wrote has to happen: someone allready has to be in the mindset of liking sex with children. Thoughtcrime? Well, if you _think_ about it, nobody cares. If you distribute your graphically visible thoughts, expect reactions. It's silly to put out your desire in the open and then whine when people tell you that you are icky.

Regarding tabloid nature of the german TV piece: not true. It was put that way from several people in the posts (especially early on posters who tried to play it down). The magazine doing the piece is one of the better investigative journalism newscasts in Germany - belonging to the public television, not sponsored or run by some company. Yes, they put some parts in a way that did light a fire - but that _is_ understandable when looking at the nature of what they did find. It's still not tabloid and most of the comments in the piece where quite reasonable (not all - some of them still didn't grasp the technicallities involved).

Regarding identification: I object the lindens age verification because of the form it takes on, the partner they put up for that. A data-grabbing, privacy-violating partner whose activities are plain and simple against the law in Germany (yes, we have laws about data protection). I would have absolutely _no_ objects to verify using for example PostIdent - a _hard_ verification in Germany. It goes far beyond what LL wants to do in that I would have to go in person to a postal office and present my papers to someone there, to get a witnessed signature of some paper stating my identity. The reason: I _know_ that their service complies with german data retention laws, that my identiy won't be stolen that way and my data misused.

The problem I still see with age verification like LL will do it: it's a sham with regard to the ageplay problem, since it is voluntary verification. Yes, it's about verifying adults, since it's adults distributing child porn. But the way they do it will just produce underground circles still in SL, nothing more. What would be much more important even than verification is a global understanding in the SL community that ageplay _is_ a problem. But read the comments to your blog to see how realistic it is to get people to understand that ...

It's depressing to see how people spend energies to defend "free speach" when it comes to virtual child porn and other weirdnesses. Wonder whether they would stand up to counter _real_ undermining of free speach, too.

Prokofy Neva

Barney,

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate it.

Don't be discouraged because a few pedophiles show up to peddle their views and their wares.

Yes, no "thoughtcrimes" here, since these are actions, and they may not be protected speech, that has to be investigated.

Just as this misconception has sprung up around the German tabloid TV, and it turns out you can tell us that in fact it's an investigative channel that isn't tabloidy, so I have to say you must question all this crap around Integrity and Aristotle. I know that Europeans immediately start climbing on their high horse and saying OMGODZ evil Bush Amerika stealing my data but...where are you getting these "facts" from? From Wired, circa 2003? From a story where journalists themselves created the sting operation and set up the fake accounts?

Nobody has done the slightest bit of real investigative work on this and really called these companies or researched their bulk mailing list customers. There is nothing inherently evil about purchasing voting lists. European addresses are also of no interest, obviously for people purchasing voting lists. Next?

What indication do you really have that it will be tampered with?

dandellion kimban

>It's really strange how people argue in defense of something like ageplay, where exactly what you wrote has to happen: someone allready has to be in the mindset of liking sex with children.

How do you explain me being against most (not all) things that Prok said here? I am far oway of liking sex with children.
I is sad to watch how the same media manipulation model goes again and again. One part of western civilisation will abandone a lot of human rights just because somebody showed something scaring enough, be it child-abuse or international terrorism. Moreover, many people whose rights are to be violated will gladly jump into offender's boat and support its own abuse in mindless fear made by media.
If you still don't understand, you are trading one of basic human's rights: freedom of thought and artistic expression. Let me clarify this before you start ranting: the only effect of the which hunt which your side is advocating is just that. Not a single child abuser will be touched with it! But, that is what primary intention of this is. Just like all the suveilence in US and UK is: it is not anti-terrorism that keeps all the cameras on the streets. But, as you may heard, those that compromise their freedom for their security will lose both (and deservs neither).

>Regarding tabloid nature of the german TV piece: not true. It was put that way from several people in the posts (especially early on posters who tried to play it down). The magazine doing the piece is one of the better investigative journalism newscasts in Germany....

Better investigative journalism?!? Have you actualy seen the piece? Luckily, there is a transcript here: http://www.secondlifeinsider.com/2007/05/11/transcript-of-the-german-piece-about-age-play/
Now, tell me that it is clear from it says that the case is about adults and not RL children abused. No, it doesn't. But, if it was put in that way it wouldn't be much of a story to be in the primetime. Skipping facts or making story to sound more sensacionalistic than it is is what is called tabloid not investigative journalism.

Brian Ribbon

"I don't think we have any studies proving that in fact that's the case, that's merely the pedophiles' supposition. Perhaps there are not very thorough studies based on the connection between *child pornography in which children are harmed* and actual harm, but that recalls another sobering problem with this lightness of the poster to "CP" -- anyone who consumes child pornography is creating a market for the services of child pornographers who exploit children and put them in these pictures. And that's wrong."

That is utter crap. You don't know anything about why child pormography is produced. I've talked to people convicted of CP offences in order to better understand the motivations of child pornographers, to help me with an article I'm producing about CP. People do not produce CP for others to possess, they produce it for profit or trade. Mere possession doesn't fuel demand, money and trade does.

"A person who uses child pornography and says he is engaging in a victimless crime and staying at home and not hurting anybody is forgetting that he is contributing to the sex trafficking of children who made the pornography in the first place."

As above. Also, there is no mechanism for a child to know when an image is viewed.

"If it causes *any* to molest, that is reason to ban it"

Even if results in less molestations than if it didn't exist?

"It's like saying drug possession is no crime at all. There'd be no market for drugs and no transport of drugs, which are illegal, if there were no desire for possession and possession which is obviously related to USING."

But even in your example, it's the buying and distribution which are increasing demand, not the possession.

"Acronyms distract from the severity of the word's connotations -- common technique."

FFS, I've already told you why I use acronyms. It should be obvious.

"We have no grounds to believe that whatsoever, and we shouldnt' be taking a pedophile's words for it, he's the fox in the chicken coop"

So you deny that a paedophile having sex with a child would harm the child and you disagree that it is an obvious reason to not act? I know you're not able to distinguish fantasy from reality, but that's your problem, a problem which is not present most people, including paedophiles. Being attracted to children doesn't affect one's morality, it affects who they are attracted to. Your analogy is pathetic too. The fox has no reason to NOT act, paedophiles do have reasons to not act. I wrote an article about claims such as your's here - http://anu.nfshost.com/?p=87

"If adult-oriented people go from pornography to reality, then pedophiles have just as much motivation as well, and none of the breaks on their activities we'd expect, since they must constantly dull their conscience and convince themselves that they and their desires are "ok" -- and that means they have every reason to lie about what they are doing."

Motivation means nothing when you have major factors to counter that. Desires damn well are okay unless they lead to actions.... and that's the point. It doesn't matter what a paedophile thinks of his desire if he knows that actions are wrong. Why do you have such an obssession with paedophiles being dishonest? How many paedophiles do you know?

"They lie," is what the police officer said about them, matter-of-factly."

They are talking about child molesters, not paedophiles. Your whole sample consists of criminals, not paedophiles in general. You can't judge a whole group based on criminals. We don't judge heterosexuals based on men who abuse women, nor should we judge paedophiles based on people who actually abuse children.

"I have no grounds to believe that a person who has already broken the moral code for himself and does not seek to end his immorality is now someone who can be trusted to "consider moral and social" issues with any appropriateness. None whatsoever."

How has someone broken the moral code by being attracted to children? Surely you're not one of those people who believes that people "choose" to be attracted to children? Even if someone doesn't consider moral/social issues, do you deny that the threat of 25 years in jail will prevent most people from acting?

"A pedophile already doesn't restrain himself by giving himself absolution for his actions and dulling his conscience, strenuously trying to justify what he does with himself and others -- the Internet chat room support group justifying what he does."

I'm sorry, but I don't "do" anything to children. Not hating oneself for their sexual attractions does not equal 'not restraining' oneself. Do you really expect people to live in self-hate? I do not need to have a 'conscience' for being attracted to children because I don't do anything to them; I don't commit crimes against children, nor do I harm them. What are you suggesting that I should feel guilty about?

"I don't wish to leave a person in self-justification and conscience-dulling mode to make determinations about how he will or won't be restraining himself."

You can't tell people what they do (or don't do). You have absolutely no clue about most of the people posting here.

"Wikipedia and Pedopedia -- these are not going to be sources for me whatsoever. Even within the wacky world of Wikipedia, the pedophilia chapters have warnings posted that they do not meet the standards for research and accuracy."

You've been caught in a lie. You sourced much of your article and your arguments from the Wikipedia article on paedophile activism. Clearly you do trust Wikipedia, but you're calling its reliability into question when you find something which you don't agree with.

"Yep, distract and dissemble, away from the fact that pedophiles are people who want to have sex with children, and displace the attention to the "victims" of "discrimination". No sale."

No, it's a relevant point and I'm not going to let you ignore it. Paedophiles are harmed by society's attitutes towards them. How can you deny that? Do you not feel that it's wrong to attack someone based on who they are attracted to? YES or NO?

"All over the Internet. The Times was a particularly good summary of the chat rooms of pedophiles; the Herald and every other SL discussion around this are minefields full of pedophiles justifying themselves."

Oh dear. So you haven't actually read any of the paedophile forums which you form such strong opinions of? You're trying to base an argument around something which you haven't actually read, instead relying on a couple of sensationalist acrticles.

"It's a sexual attraction that seeks to practice without getting caught, or to lull society into thinking that it is justified."

Again, a lie. I do NOT want it to be acceptable to have sex with children.

">Thanks, that's kind. I have the same opinion of adult-child sex as most people; I disagree with it.

That's not true. Your believe that simulating it is ok, and that erodes the moral distinctions."

I understand that fantasy is not reality, you don't. If I agreed with adult-child sex, don't you think I'd go to a country with a lower Age of consent?

"I couldn't support such a fundamental lie, that seeks to distract from the essential wrongfulness of pedophilia by creating the rues that there are "safe" forms of it."

I don't intend to distract from the wrongfulness of acting on paedophilic urges, but I seek to point out that fantasies about sex with children don't harm anyone and that paedophiles who don't have an intention of molesting children are safe to spend time with children. Hell, last year I went on vacation with my family and my younger brother's friend (who was VERY attractive), and I didn't struggle to control myself there. Paedophiles who do not act on their attraction are safe, with the exception of some being dangerous to the society which attacks them.

"No, pedophilia is a preference and a predilection that orients a person to commit a crime, because he does not see anything wrong with it at root; it's his desire.

It creates the possibility of harm for children, and must not be encouraged or sanctioned. It must be heartily discouraged."

Again, not true. Paedophilia is not the primary cause of child molestation -

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ECE6P/html/pedophilia_2.html
http://www.paedosexualitaet.de/lib/Okami1992.html
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~mwogan/eyemovement.htm
http://www.shfri.net/trans/lautmann/lautmann.htm
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/ncapedo/report/c02.htm

"since the effort to discourage and criminalize them"

Do you want to criminalise an attraction to children?

"What does it mean that "minor-attracted people" (dear God, is this like the "differently-abled"???) are to be safe from attack? Does this mean that I would advocate that they be arrested with due process and not lynch-mobbed? Yes, any criminal suspect should be arrested with due process."

Somebody who is attracted to children is not automatically a criminal suspect; such a statement is absurd. Would you really want Police officers spending all of their time arresting people who are attracted to children in order to question them? They would have no time left to do anything else.

Barney Boomslang

Prok: well, there has been some investigating on the Aristotle/Integrity stuff. For example the fact that Aristotle is connectd to URU ( http://www.uru.co.uk/ ) - you can find the connection in two places, the 2005 yearly report of URU's mother company GB group and the little news article that writes about a top exec from Aristotle moving to URU as top exec there. The activities of URU are - under at least german, maybe even european law at minimum questionable. One of the concepts of URU is to amass personal data and crosslink them, to do profiling. They sell these profiles as checks to companies (to check employees or customers). This data amassing and crosslinking is illegal at least in Germany. The funny fact that both Aristotle Integrity and URU name the exact number of non-US countries they can check against and the quite direct connection sounds a lot like they just use a common data base.

It's not so much a high horse of europeans, but more a hard-fought-for right on your personal data which gets us europeans up the wall - a recent example for that is the SWIFT debacle, that got a lot of people under pressure in Europe.

Aristotle itself - well, there are several things that set the alarm bells going (and don't come up with the Integrity isn't Aristotle - the presentation of Integrity shows not even the slightest sign of being separate from Aristotle, the alleged separation is just cosmetics, possibly to counter the bad press).

One thing that immediately trigger the bullshit filter is "Insured and Guaranteed (merchants using Integrity, are indemnified for violations of laws relating to underage access)" - it's on their website, up front. Well, the problem is, their age verification was lambasted by 21 US state attorney general when it was implemented for BudTV. We had similar situations with age checks that just used personal data and passport number verifications - they fell flat in court. It's one of the reasons why things like PostIdent are available and work here - it's one of the very few ways that are accepted identifications in court cases.

Another thing that makes someone careful about Aristotle is indeed that 2003 article in wired - not because it was in wired, a quite hyping news place, but because _what_ Aristotle did. The case was not simply that they sold voter lists - even though that is not allowed in all US states, as I understand it - but how they did it, without any check of the buyer whatsoever. The way they completely disregarded that problem in 2003 doesn't make them look like the most competent player in the field.

Add to that the fact that providing your _hard_ identity data (like passport numbers or national id's) to some company itself might be against the law of your country, providing them to some country outside your own legislation (and data protection laws) would be outright stupid.

Yes, I read that Aristotle has a contract where they agree to not hand the data over to someone else - but the point is, you can't check that. You h ave no way to make sure the data you gave them doesn't end up in their giant database, will be crosslinked with other data in there to complete your profile - and be reused by URU for example, which would bring it back under european legislation.

Under german law, I have the right to request a listing of all data that is stored under my key from a company. I have the right to request complete deletion of my data at that company. There are exceptions, and those exceptions are getting quite some fire (for example Schufa, a central credit record tracking company). I have no such rights with a company in the US. They can breach their contract with Lindenlab and sell my data - I could try to sue lindenlab, since I have a contract with them - but they are in the US. I could try to sue Aristotle - but it would even be harder, since I never made a contract with them.

Actually the way they address the verification problem is what you usually call the WikiTekky way - they throw a tool at the problem, even though neither the tool itself nor the way they iimplement it will solve their problem. And on the way doing so, they annoy the hell out of a big part of their community, they are building on.

Verification? Yes, I am pro verification. Not silly verification - hard verification. There is no problem for me to provide verification of my identity to a company I payed roundabout 3500 US$ over the last year - if I had problems with that, I wouldn't have payed. But handing over hard identity data to a third-party that doesn't instill any kind of trust in me? No way. And that's the problem - they see that not everybody will be willing to do so, and so need to make it voluntary. But well, voluntary id is worth nothing. Easily fakeable id is worth not much, either.

The fu n is: the old credit card based verification was much better suited than this security theater from Integrity. Simple reason: either the payer was a kid with a credit card, in that case the kid was at least 16. Yes, minor, but far less problematic than some 12yo kid (and yes, I agree that there are limits for a reason and there is no excuse to ignore them - but what _is_ the limit? is it 18? is it 21 like drinking age in many states in the US?). The other option: a kid uses dads card. Dad will notice sooner or later and investigate himself - kid gets trouble. Under the new system, kid just puts in dads data. dad never will notice, because Integrity doesn't have any backchannel!

That's the whole thing about identification - it can't be oneway, without personal visit. If I meet with you and present my papers, it's fine - there is no backchannel needed, because I identified to you directly. I can do it by proxy, too - if you trust the proxy, and I trust the proxy, we are fine. But if I do it solely through an anonymous medium like a website, there need to be backchannels for information to go back and forth to remove the most obvious abuses and fakes. Otherwise the identifiation system itself is just a sham.

And I gues that's at the gist of my dislike of Integrity. I worked on Identity stuff myself - worked with cryptography tools, learnt about identy, what actually defines identity, learned about trust nets and how to build them and was involved quite a bit with the technical side of that - and get a system presented that is just a big fat fake, based on a data-grabbing source with dubious track records. Ugh.

I won't touch the "let the community decide what is adult content" stance of the Lindens at all - that's just batshit crazy to do, in a heterogenous community like SL (I am absolutely sure that the scandinavians or dutch will have a quite different view on what is offensive adult content than the US citizens).

So - verification? Sure. Use a working system, many european (and not-european) countries have systems installed allready. Especially in the EU most countries will have to have some, because part of the stuff is based on EU law that is just turned into national law.

Yes, there are countries where that won't work - but what are the chances that Aristotle can provide a working identification with those countries? Sure, they might claim they can - but is it a fake claim or a true claim? I don't think it the LL customers obligation to prove that the claim of Aristotle is fake, but it is Aristotle's obligation to prove that it is true. _They_ are the ones asking for our national ID, after all, _they_ are the ones making claims (that technically can't hold true, at least not at the level the Lindens propose).

Barney Boomslang

@dandelion: ignoring the other stuff you write (it's the same old fake arguments, repeated): yes, other than you I _have_ seen the piece. twice. And other than you I don#t have to rely on a transcript and translation, since it ran at the best evening time in my home country, on one of our major TV channels. You see, I prefer to base my comments on something like the seriosity of a TV reporting on first hand knowledge, not third-hand ...

Prokofy Neva

Barney,

People don't want to be verified because they want to indulge in extreme sexual lifestyles anonymously, without answering any questioning from their real-life families, co-workers, bosses, communities -- much less police. And i'm not talking about ageplay.

Most of the people screaming about this are people in the adult BDSM club business, and they have a hugely vested interest, financial and personal, to dredge up every single thing they can find.

What I see you doing is merely googling and ringing the chimes of every forum posts on this subject by these people, and I frankly don't find it persuasive. I imagine no matter what agency the Lindens used, people would try to break it down and attack it on that basis, just to harry and harass them and not give them compliance.

And this constant harrying and harassing, if it does make the Lindens gave, will make them ultimately say they will only take care of PG 13, business, and education, and socializers with adult stuff can go to other services. I actually think that if the Lindens cannot solve this amicably, they will be only too willing to cut lose the cybering community without a second thought.

You can only point to clippings and things like "sounds like" or "seems questionable" -- and while I can understand that there's a lot more work and passion and politics that went into the privacy act in the EU, I really we've yet to see a really proper reading of a European lawyer on this issue.

Re "Well, the problem is, their age verification was lambasted by 21 US state attorney general when it was implemented for BudTV."

Yes, I read all that, many times, and again: not persuasive. If there is one scandal like this and a U.S. attorneys general sound off -- well, that's how the system work. It's a dynamic, regulating system. If the media and the attorneys generals go after something, they fix it. What happened next? Did it not stay fixed? Was it never fixed? Did it remain a problem? See, that's what I'm not finding here, a willingness to really follow up. No normal journalist and normal lawyer has called all these companies, attorneys general and such and really run this to the ground.

The wired piece is completely out of date, from 2003. The company replied that they took measures to meet these concerns. The journalists never returned to it. And they weren't interested, really. They merely wanted to bang on "machine politics".

Use of lists is an art. I used to to have to shop for and purchase mailing lists when I worked for various magazines or NGOs. It's a huge amount of work, and over the years, a lot of legislative work went into controlling these and preventing spam and abuse, too. So it's a process that I don't think you can make a dire pronunciation on and then walk away.

Basically, I think it comes down to this, Barney: if someone's sexual activity in SL is embarrassing to them in RL in any way, then they have to come to terms with *that*. They have to ask themselvs whether they themselves, in their own souls, can verify their own passions. That's really the issue -- validating your second life. People want to compartmentalize it and pretend it's like Vegas -- what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas -- but it ain't Vegas, it's your living room, your computer, and smile, you are on Candid Camera in terms of the leakiness of it all.

The Linden tell us you need not seek this verification, but we don't know how far it will go. The bottom line: can people keep cybering in the privacy of their SL island homes without verification? That's what they want to know. If they can do that without verification, great!
How far will it intrude?

If clubs and free sex palaces and such have to verify

Playboy is coming into Second Life. Don't you think they have vast experience in complying with law *and* keeping the privacy of their subscribers and patrons? Of course they do. And while we're all whining and our mom and pop businesses struggling and fuming, they, as amateurs are being driven out of business, and the big boys like Playboy are coming in -- and you don't see them editorializing about Aristotle and age verification, eh?

>based on a data-grabbing source with dubious track records.

I still do not see your sourcing for this but some kind of "gut feeling" and religious conviction based on your own tekkie-ness.

Perhaps the Lindens will fork the verification process and use some more acceptable agency that Europeans can recognize or something.

I guess it's not Aristotle's obligation to do a damn thing, however. LL can listen to everyone's concerns, but at the end of the day, they have to get started putting in an age verification system. They will put it in place and hope to iron kinks out of it. People will scream as they do with every change in SL especially those that seem to affect freedoms. And the dog will bark, and the caravan will move on.

dandellion kimban

@barney: ok, maybe transcript and translation are fake. Can you please correct them and said that intention of the piece is not to make public believe that SL is a child-porn heaven? C'mon, that would be too much of a fake, it is kind of yor responsibility to point and correct that.

Prokofy Neva

When people like Brian Ribbon, a pedophile activist, are determined to be cunning and diabolical, well, they're cunning and diabolical, to get what they want.

Start with this kind of really specious, over-the-top-reasoning.

"People do not produce CP for others to possess, they produce it for profit or trade. Mere possession doesn't fuel demand, money and trade does.

You have to blink in sheer surprise that someone could so contort their mind like that. People produce pornograpy to be *sold*. Those who possess first *bought it*. Let's draw the dotted line here, shall we? This shouldn't have to be done, but Brian is being deliberately faux-obtuse. Possession happens because *people buy pornography and give the makers of pornography their money, and it makes a profit for them, motivating them to continue."

I mean, the idea that you could so bifurcate "possession" and "those who sell it to make a profit" as if they are entirely unrelated is really the devil's own work.

>Also, there is no mechanism for a child to know when an image is viewed.

Another marvel of junk pedo science. My God, nobody must ever challenge these people. A child who has been abducted or exploited is harmed. He's been harmed to be used in the porn ring. The buyers of porn help sustain that evil. It's not like the victims need to re-prove their victmihood again -- it's done. And the porn makers don't get clickthroughs and get paid as a percentage of readers. They sell it, and they're given money to make more. I mean, this isn't brain surgery here.

>Even if results in less molestations than if it didn't exist?

There's no evidence for this, and any reduction of harm is the goal:

1. Virtually all molesters are caught with porn, too.
2. Porn by itself was never able to dramatically reduce the number of incidents and crimes.

No evidence whatsoever.

>But even in your example, it's the buying and distribution which are increasing demand, not the possession.

This is really quite something, watching this evil mind at work. Possession results from uh....what? Going to the public library? Getting an, err...gift subscription to Porn of the Month Club? No, it results from BUYING. BUYING CREATES DEMAND.

>FFS, I've already told you why I use acronyms. It should be obvious.

Acronyms help pedophiles reduce the impact of the words that have quite properly been associated with their behaviour.

>So you deny that a paedophile having sex with a child would harm the child and you disagree that it is an obvious reason to not act?

Word salading worthy of W-hat, and designed merely to try to badger and harass and interlocutor into agreeing with a pedophile. But I can safely say that there is nothing I'm going to be agreeing with a pedophile about.

>I know you're not able to distinguish fantasy from reality, but that's your problem, a problem which is not present most people, including paedophiles.

Um, I guess that's why they can stick with magazines then, and not come in Second Life, because it's more real.

>Being attracted to children doesn't affect one's morality, it affects who they are attracted to.

That's a really scary and chilling statement. Let's reiterate what's right here: being attracted to children is immoral. It's not a genetic inherent trait. It's a set of circumstances but also life choices. It is immoral to be attracted to children.

>Your analogy is pathetic too. The fox has no reason to NOT act, paedophiles do have reasons to not act. I wrote an article about claims such as your's here - http://anu.nfshost.com/?p=87

We have no reason to trust pedophiles who deny even the most obvious, glaring link, between the buying of porn and its possession, and the use of their funds by porn makers to then continue the production of porn. This mysterious and unjustified carving out of the act of "possession" as devoid of any act of "buying" and "selling" is a patent absurdity.

>Motivation means nothing when you have major factors to counter that. Desires damn well are okay unless they lead to actions.... and that's the point.

People who constantly exacerbate and indulge in and celebrate and justify their sick desires are objectively undermining society and civilization. It's wrong. No one is required to indulge in their thinking. It's possible to get effective therapy, and possible to heal and even at a very basic level control one's actions.

>It doesn't matter what a paedophile thinks of his desire if he knows that actions are wrong. Why do you have such an obssession with paedophiles being dishonest? How many paedophiles do you know?

We can see that this pedophile is bound and determined to fly in the face of common sense and separate the normal and obvious linkage of buying and selling with possession. What other obvious links might he miss or lie about?

>They are talking about child molesters, not paedophiles. Your whole sample consists of criminals, not paedophiles in general.

No, the police officer spoke very clearly about the way in which chat groups help the child abuser justify himself and erode the barriers to action. If only one in a circle of chatters and supporters goes out to commit a crime and the rest are merely helping to break down the barrier and justify it with endless word-salading and logic worthy of Eddie Haskell, then they are all accomplices. It's a racket.

>You can't judge a whole group based on criminals.

Just like w-hat and libsecondlife and every other kind of entity filled with those griefing or committing crimes even, we're long past the point where we can buy this old Nuremberg defense. You sure can judge a group. When you have something that is a conspiracy to commit crime, it can be judged.

>We don't judge heterosexuals based on men who abuse women, nor should we judge paedophiles based on people who actually abuse children.

Pedophiles are abusive at root by justifying their desires and thinking that they can think up safe areas to practice them, or only look at porn, or only go in SL, and there's no impact on any of it. I already see a really major blind spot about the porn inudstry, and the ways in which those using porn have talked themselves into believing that use and looking at porn is unrelated to porn producers and the children they exploit. Hey, neat trick, but...it's in tatters as an argument.

Let me repeat myself:

"I have no grounds to believe that a person who has already broken the moral code for himself and does not seek to end his immorality is now someone who can be trusted to "consider moral and social" issues with any appropriateness. None whatsoever."

>How has someone broken the moral code by being attracted to children? Surely you're not one of those people who believes that people "choose" to be attracted to children?

Again, efforts to ask rhetorical questions to re-direct the sense of shame not to the person with the objectionable beliefs and practices -- the pedophile -- but the person showing revulsion and wishing to uphold the innocence and protection of children.

Any human being is in control of his sexual impulses. He need not indulge in them. He does not require sex to stay alive, like he requires food.

>Even if someone doesn't consider moral/social issues, do you deny that the threat of 25 years in jail will prevent most people from acting?

Again, loud, dramatic, rhetorical questions and merely the effort to keep a critic offbalance and "agreeing with a pedophile".

Let me repeat myself:

"A pedophile already doesn't restrain himself by giving himself absolution for his actions and dulling his conscience, strenuously trying to justify what he does with himself and others -- the Internet chat room support group justifying what he does."

>I'm sorry, but I don't "do" anything to children. Not hating oneself for their sexual attractions does not equal 'not restraining' oneself.

Um, a even a little less self-love and self-indulgence in the pedophiles we see springing up around this issue might go a long way toward protecting children better.

>Do you really expect people to live in self-hate? I do not need to have a 'conscience' for being attracted to children because I don't do anything to them; I don't commit crimes against children, nor do I harm them. What are you suggesting that I should feel guilty about?

A person who indulges their attractions with porn is feeding the porn industry; in SL they are creating a climate for abuse to take place, either of real children or of violation of laws in some countries.

I don't believe that pedophilia is like the weather, like locusts, falling suddenly upon a field unexpectedly. I think it's a complex phenomenon that is rooted in both infantalism and destruction of innocence in the pedophile in a variety of ways, but I'm not an expert and am not likely to become one. What I can see is that a pedophile is motivated to justify himself at every turn, and make himself out to be the victim. He acts as if he is completely a plaything of desires and has absolutely no control even what he thinks and feels about. It's a deep sort of infantalism and hedonism, I guess.

So, let me repeat myself:

"I don't wish to leave a person in self-justification and conscience-dulling mode to make determinations about how he will or won't be restraining himself."

>You can't tell people what they do (or don't do). You have absolutely no clue about most of the people posting here.

I don't see why I need any clues to repudiate the indulgence of pedophilia in Second Life. It should be indulged there.

>You've been caught in a lie. You sourced much of your article and your arguments from the Wikipedia article on paedophile activism.

I haven't been caught in a lie, as the Wikipedia chapter on pedophile activism indeed states that it is inaccurate and needing of fixing up even by Wikinista lights. And I fail to see how the section activists it is somehow improperly referenced in a discussion about *pedophiles who are actively justifying themselves on blogs? Hello?*

Because that's what this discussion is about, the pedophiles in Second Life justifying their presence and fighting the Lindens' moves to remove them.

>Clearly you do trust Wikipedia, but you're calling its reliability into question when you find something which you don't agree with.

Oh I hardly trust Wikipedia, and I merely note that even Wikipedia had trouble on that topic, as any source word, given the really diabolically aggressive gang that will bang on them trying to whitewash themselves.

Again, my point is relevant:

"Yep, distract and dissemble, away from the fact that pedophiles are people who want to have sex with children, and displace the attention to the "victims" of "discrimination". No sale."

>No, it's a relevant point and I'm not going to let you ignore it. Paedophiles are harmed by society's attitutes towards them.

Our focus must be on the protection of children, and the due diligence of landowners and the platform provider. Our focus can't be on these "poor victimized pedophiles".

>How can you deny that? Do you not feel that it's wrong to attack someone based on who they are attracted to? YES or NO?

Again, I don't play "let me answer baiting questions from determined pedophiles" as an Internet sport. Taking care of pedophiles' rights isn't my concern.

In attacking pedophilia in SL, we attack its visibility in the forum of acting out and pictures. It would not be possible for us to attack "thought crimes" because these would remain in heads, and not typed in chat. But they are typed, shown, and acted.

>Oh dear. So you haven't actually read any of the paedophile forums which you form such strong opinions of? You're trying to base an argument around something which you haven't actually read, instead relying on a couple of sensationalist acrticles.

I trust the New York Times to have handled this subject extremely well, and they have, from all evidence. I was impressed. It really helped me understand what's up with all this.

"It's a sexual attraction that seeks to practice without getting caught, or to lull society into thinking that it is justified."

>Again, a lie. I do NOT want it to be acceptable to have sex with children.

It can't be acceptable to use child pornography, or to create a climate of impunity in SL with simulation.

>I understand that fantasy is not reality, you don't. If I agreed with adult-child sex, don't you think I'd go to a country with a lower Age of consent?

I don't speculate how pedophiles go about their evil business, it's not my concern. Fantasy always affect reality; that's why the German police came to the door.

>I don't intend to distract from the wrongfulness of acting on paedophilic urges, but I seek to point out that fantasies about sex with children don't harm anyone and that paedophiles who don't have an intention of molesting children are safe to spend time with children. Hell, last year I went on vacation with my family and my younger brother's friend (who was VERY attractive), and I didn't struggle to control myself there. Paedophiles who do not act on their attraction are safe, with the exception of some being dangerous to the society which attacks them.

No sale. All it would take for all parties to be informed to radically change this happy fake picture.

>Again, not true. Paedophilia is not the primary cause of child molestation

Matches don't start fires either. Fires are actually started by oxygen. These sources are not persuasive whatsoever, and clearly this is a field where activists go around getting the junk science they need to support their cause.

>Do you want to criminalise an attraction to children?

Children have to be protected from pedophiles who erode the boundaries between the permissible and act out their fantasies and justify them in virtual worlds. They can be protected by age verification, which is about verifying not only for reaching the age of majority, but creating accountability in adults.

>Somebody who is attracted to children is not automatically a criminal suspect; such a statement is absurd. Would you really want Police officers spending all of their time arresting people who are attracted to children in order to question them? They would have no time left to do anything else.

This isn't an abstract discussion where we try to find the ways in which pedophiles can be abstractly found to be innocent by artificially separating their thoughts from deeds.

Pornography feeds the industry of exploitation. SL creates a climate of justifcation and impunity. LL and others cannot be fueling this.

Lem Skall

>Let's reiterate what's right here: being attracted to children is immoral.

Who defines morality? And what is moral then? Being attracted only to one person of the opposite sex in a monogamous relationship? Is a married man immoral if he is attracted to a woman who is not his wife? Or is he immoral only once he acts on his attraction and actually has sex with that other woman? But I guess that according to you, if he thinks it, then eventually he will do it. And the entire porn industry is immoral because it allows married men to fantasize about sex with other women than their wives and because it encourages them to act on their fantasies.

Prok, maybe you should be banned from blogging because you create "a climate of justification and impunity" against freedom of thought and because your postings "erode the boundaries" between what is moral and immoral. Hell, maybe blogging should be banned in its entirety.

I am looking forward to your dissecting my post and pointing out what mind bending tricks I have used.

Barney Boomslang

@prok: well, as I said, I been in the field of identity, trust networks and stuff like that for quite a while - and I highly object anyone who poses as "verified identity service" who provides a service that by definition (as they state it in their own description of their product) is faulty. It's just not my job to prove them wrong - it's their job to prove their own product right. It's called truth in advertising - they advertise a service that they can't possibly provide with the parameters they set themselves. Plain and simple :)

And regarding the state attorneys general: it wasn't one. It was 21. From different states. Stating exactly the same problem that German Judges stated on exactly the same kind of verification: asking for data and only verifying that entered data, without adding any way to prove that the person entering the data is the person the data is entered about. That's an inherent problem of the given "identification mechanism" - it's faulty by design. Especially since the possible frauders are very likely having access to the exact kind of data asked.

There are working countersamples of identity checks. They could just be used - and as I stated, I would have no objections to those. ID is something you provide all the time when doing business - and business asking for ID is just common sense. But it's as much common sense to use _working_ identity checks.

The dislike of Aristotle and safety of data there - well, that's just plain common sense for anybody in Europe, knowing about problems with security of data. Legality in Germany is out the window for what Aristotle is doing - there is no question there. The position regarding European law is questionable at least - the problem there being that not every European law is necessarily turned into national law in all EU countries (especially .uk is notorious for getting exemptions from european regulations, which might make URU legal in .uk, but not necessarily in all of the EU).

And yes, a lot of Europeans actually _do_ think about their data and where it ends up - it's the result of a long fight for public awareness of it. Still far too many people give in to stupid things like payback cards - europeans aren't necessarily smarter. But a lot of them _do_ understand privacy issues and as far as I observed, care much more about them than US citizens. Putting objection to verification down as the fear of their own cybering being hampered - sorry, but that's not even a cheap shot.

The reaction to data collection especially from US companies _is_ seen as problematic in .eu not least because of the many recent occurences where .eu data was mined, collected, scraped by US authorities - and companies happily obliging (even european companies - SWIFT for example).

It's not as if we are just imagining those breaches of data privacy, it's allready happening in big style. And that the services of Aristotle are based on data mining is stated by themselves and their .uk partner URU.

Sure, you can put it all down to me being techy - but it won't change the simple plain fact that what Aristotle provides is security theater, especially in the context LL sets up with voluntary verification. And as can be seen in your reaction to it, it's security theater that's working - giving you a false sense of security.

Verification? Sure. A working one. A trustable one. But throwing your money on a dumb tool makes you more techy in your action than me :)

Brian Ribbon

Let's clarify a few facts here. You avoid answers to difficult questions and simply run off at a tangent.

"When people like Brian Ribbon, a pedophile activist, are determined to be cunning and diabolical, well, they're cunning and diabolical, to get what they want."

What exactly do you think I want?

"Again, efforts to ask rhetorical questions to re-direct the sense of shame not to the person with the objectionable beliefs and practices -- the pedophile --"

I do not engage in ANY objectionable practices, unless you consider my activism to be "objectional."

You believe that being attracted to children is a "life choice." That's insane; why would anybody want to be attracted to children? Paedophiles are attracted to children regardless of how much they do or don't think about it. You can't "cure" someone of their attraction to anyone, nor can you "change" attractions.

I don't agree with the purchase/sale of child pornography and I'm happy for it to be criminalised. What I disagree with is the criminalisation of child pornography in instances where somebody has not paid for it, but simply downloaded it from internet sites which reproduce older images - I know several people who have gone to prison for that. One of those people is the person who gave me the link to this debate.

"No, the police officer spoke very clearly about the way in which chat groups help the child abuser...."

Stop. You're talking about child molesters, I want to talk about paedophiles. I am not defending child molesters.

">Do you want to criminalise an attraction to children?

Children have to be protected from pedophiles who erode the boundaries between the permissible and act out their fantasies and justify them in virtual worlds. They can be protected by age verification, which is about verifying not only for reaching the age of majority, but creating accountability in adults."

Answer my question, please.

"No sale. All it would take for all parties to be informed to radically change this happy fake picture."

What?

"Fantasy always affect reality"

Maybe in your weird world. Most people can distinguish between the two. That's the problem; you're locked up in a world where fantasy is reality and you just cannot see the difference.

"This isn't an abstract discussion where we try to find the ways in which pedophiles can be abstractly found to be innocent by artificially separating their thoughts from deeds."

Thought doesn't always lead to action. As I've already stated, some people can tell the difference between the two.

"I trust the New York Times to have handled this subject extremely well, and they have, from all evidence. I was impressed. It really helped me understand what's up with all this."

You should do some research about Kurt Eichenwald, the journalist who wrote that article. He "left" the New York Times when the newspaper found out that he'd sent money to a child prostitute for one of his articles. He's hardly an honest journalist.

"He acts as if he is completely a plaything of desires and has absolutely no control even what he thinks and feels about."

I'm sorry, do you believe that people have control over who they feel attracted to?

"Any human being is in control of his sexual impulses. He need not indulge in them. He does not require sex to stay alive, like he requires food."

Of course a human is in control of how he DEALS WITH his sexual impulses, but he sure will have sexual fantasies if he is indeed human.

"People who constantly exacerbate and indulge in and celebrate and justify their sick desires are objectively undermining society and civilization. It's wrong. No one is required to indulge in their thinking. It's possible to get effective therapy, and possible to heal and even at a very basic level control one's actions."

No. There is no therapy to "cure" sexual thoughts about children. You cannot change a sexual attraction.... and you KNOW that.

"You sure can judge a group. When you have something that is a conspiracy to commit crime, it can be judged."

Paedophilia is not a 'conspiracy to commit crime.' It's one thing, and one thing only - a sexual attraction to young children. Period.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ads

  • Google AdSense

Ads

  • Google AdSense
Blog powered by Typepad

Networked Blogs

  • Networked Blogs