Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (Score 1) 487

I can assure you that most pedophiles sympathize with you. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a crime - and like most people, most pedophiles sympathize with the victims of crime.

There have been a number of studies that have shown that the majority of child pornography that is traded is not imagery of children being abused by any reasonable definition. Most are simple nudes, with a minority that are sex acts among children, or sex acts with a child and an adult that the child does not appear to object to. There is an even smaller minority that might be unquestionably considered images of abuse, but just as the famous image of a Vietnamese girl burned by napalm was not a turn-on for most viewers, images of actual abuse is not a turn-on for most pedophiles. If there were any recordings made of your abuse, and if they were ever released on the net, you can be assured that most of the reactions they would garner would be thoughts of sympathy.

There are a number of problems with the present witch hunt. Children have been excluded from society and forced into roles they do not want, and pedophiles have been deliberately confused with child molesters; while the child abuse industry - therapists, politicians, and law enforcement - makes good money from feeding the frenzy. Children and the pedophiles who love them are both victims of this state of affairs, as is society as whole. We have established a sort of intergenerational apartheid in the English-speaking world, and ask the natives in South Africa how well apartheid protected them.

Comment yes, he's an idiot, but he has lots of company (Score 1) 487

Seriously - this is standard dogma among therapists and progressive feminists. They seriously claim that looking at a photo is equivalent to doing what is in that photo - so you remember that photo of a little Vietnamese girl that was burned with napalm? Everyone who saw that picture - regardless of whether they were moved to sympathy with her by seeing it - is guilty of spraying napalm on a little girl - and probably guilty of a sex crime as well, seeing as the famous photograph showed her naked.

Comment CAUTION! DO NOT DO THIS! (Score 2) 487

If you accidentally stumble across child pornography, do not report it to the authorities. You can be and likely will be prosecuted if you do so.

Possession is considered a serious crime, and criminal intent is not considered relevant.

If you stumble across child pornography, immediately clear out your browser history, do whatever you can to clean up your hard drive - and hope to ghod that the site wasn't an FBI honey pot that just got your IP address.

There is no defense.

Comment The Therapeutic Inquisition (Score 2) 487

Therapists are a religion of their own, and their beliefs are just as nutty as those of any other religion - and nuttier than most. Their regime is one of torture and intimidation, and anyone who questions their findings they treat as a damned heretic.

If you really want to look at exploitation, follow the money. The big bucks are made by the child abuse industry - the psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, politicians and cops that prey on the public's concern for children by pretending to protect or help children - for considerable financial gain.

Consider this recent case in which a 12 year old girl flew from New Mexico to Idaho to be with an 18 year old she liked. The girl's mother complained, and the police in Idaho interfered in the girl's affairs.

http://www.idahopress.com/news/article_b577b760-7153-11e0-b128-001cc4c03286.html

"The Nampa Police Department developed the Child Abduction Response Team (CART) plan a few months ago for cases like this, said Chief Bill Augsburger."

Apparently when they called it a Child Abduction Response Team they weren't kidding, because their Response was to Abduct a Child from the locale which she had freely chosen.

There are a multitude of examples where children's rights were not merely not honored but utterly ignored - but we seldom hear of the girls and boys who are driven to guilt and even to suicide at the thought that their older friend is in prison because of them, nor do we hear of the forced examinations to find out whether a child had consensual sex with an adult: essentially, our law enforcement agencies routinely rape children to determine whether there has been a crime.

So I have to ask, who is really exploiting children here? Who is really treating children like chattel? Who is really acting without regard to the harm they do to children?

'Cause it ain't the guys downloading pictures of children enjoying themselves.

Comment Re:Bureaucrats (Score 1) 487

Somebody is making all those photos ... and lately it's been the kids themselves, if you're familiar with "sexting".

Besides this, there are many places in the world where nudity is not a big issue. Do children in these countries suffer from the knowledge that people might have seen pictures of them naked?

Perhaps the problem is not with pedophiles, but with a society that attempts to control both children and sexuality, and which denies child sexuality. Does the harm really come from sex, or from an absurdly out-of-control response to child sexuality?

In any case, the idea that looking at a photo is equal to a crime shown in the photo is reminiscent of the religious belief of some Native Americans that photography steals people's souls. Are we sure we want to have laws based on that?

The only good news for national security is that in the event of a cyberwar, the U.S. can call on legions of technically sophisticated pedophiles to come to their aid - if they haven't pissed them off so much that they all decide to help America's enemies instead.

Maybe the FBI or the CIA needs to hire Jon Schillaci. He has experience keeping computer systems running under tremendous difficulties, and on a shoestring budget. And they know where he is.

Comment Re:Misleading... (Score 2) 389

The Constitution explicitly outlaws Ex Post Facto laws - and does so twice, to be sure.

However, the U.S. government has a way around Constitutional limitations it does not like. It simply ignores them. They all pretend that the limitation is not there, and just do what they want.

In recent years the usual "justification" for usurpation of power are the twin "threats" of terrorism and pedophilia. The "terrorists" are generally people who are upset because the United States government - or the thugs it supports - have been killing their friends and family; and scapegoating pedophiles is a no-brainer - they're generally too gentle and peace-loving to fight back much.

The U.S. has now allowed pedophiles to be held indefinitely after they have served their full sentence for any crime they may have been convicted of, and even though the change allowing indefinite detention was made after their conviction. This is clearly an ex post facto law, as well as violating due process, but the Supreme Court has officially declared it's OK - so who cares what the supreme law of the land actually says?

The U.S. has also sent agents to a foreign country (the Netherlands) to kidnap a foreign national for "crimes" committed in a foreign jurisdiction. IIRC, this happened in the 1980s, and was also connected to pedophilia. In the late 1980s the U.S. government also invaded Panama in order to enforce U.S. laws there, despite not having any legal jurisdiction, more recently the U.S. government has exercised jurisdiction on British businessmen who operated gambling websites based in central America (IIRC), and the U.S. and Britain have both declared worldwide jurisdiction on pedophiles.

So, the U.S. government has already declared the Constitution null and void, in everything but name. The U.S. government has already established the principle of allowing ex post facto laws, and the U.S. government has already established precedents to claim worldwide jurisdiction on several types of laws - and it has used the two non-threats of terrorism and pedophilia to justify them all. And, of course, the United States government is waging war on Love itself. I leave it to the reader to determine who is actually threatening the peace of the world.

Submission + - Florida Sheriff attacks Free Speech 1

Baldur_of_Asgard writes: When Phillip Greaves' electronic book was censored by Amazon this exceptional act was considered a private matter by most people and no great loss, but now a freedom-hating sheriff in Florida is trying to gut the 1st Amendment to the detriment of us all. Free speech is ultimately about unpopular speech, after all. Popular beliefs don't need defending.

Comment Re:the usual stalking horse (Score 3, Interesting) 419

First, pedophilia means an attraction to children. It has nothing to do with rape or molestation - and in fact, most cases of child rape are committed by persons who are not pedophiles. This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of many researchers and the FBI. Equating pedophiles and child molesters is like referring to all heterosexual men as rapists.

Even in the rare cases where actual pedophiles have had sexual contact with children, most bona fide researchers and law enforcement have observed that pedophiles almost never use violence. In contrast, research has found that those who are sexually violent against children are almost never attracted to the children - that is, they are not pedophiles.

Second, pedophilia is not a fetish. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. It is, as you say, not justifiable - just as being an American, or a European, or an African is not justifiable. These things just are.

Third, what makes people angry at pedophiles is a combination of ignorance, fear of the unknown, yellow journalism, xenophobia, and grandstanding politicians. The "pedophiles" that the public is angry at are not even pedophiles - two diametrically opposed groups have somehow been merged into one in the public mind - but it is very difficult to get the truth out.

The question is, once the truth comes out and the public realizes that there was never any serious threat from pedophiles, or terrorists, or illegal aliens, or whatever other bogeyman the politicians come up with to justify the loss of freedom - will it be too late?

Comment Re:the usual stalking horse (Score 1) 419

... and if you had visited that link, you would have discovered that most child molesters are not pedophiles - that is, they are not attracted to children. Most child molesters are men who are attracted to women but have an opportunity - often coupled with impairment (drugs, alcohol, mentally ill) that lets them molest or rape a child.

Psychologically healthy people - whether attracted to men, women, boys, or girls - do not rape other people.

But hey ... ultimately it's your freedom that your choice to be ignorant will cost you.

Comment the usual stalking horse (Score 5, Informative) 419

Once again a western government uses the drummed-up fear of pedophiles as a stalking horse to eradicate human liberty. The damnedest thing is that pedophiles are about as peaceful a group of people as can be found - but I suppose that is why the government has chosen this target. It's harder to crack down on minorities who are inclined and strong enough to strike back.

It's easier to hire the angry people to put down the peaceful people than the other way around, and get the angry people to accept the loss of freedom as "necessary" to the struggle.

A few facts about the bête noire du jour. Remember, the loss of your freedom depends on the people never learning the truth ... at least, until it is too late.

Comment Of course they don't lock up the crazies (Score 1) 185

Of course the U.S. government doesn't lock up the crazies. Their "tolerance" for people that no one would ever believe is their evidence that nothing is wrong and all is right in the world.

If you look into the FBI going to Mexico to arrest Jon Schillaci you will believe differently. First, note that he was named one of the FBI's 10 Most Wanted because he was accused, years ago, of touching a boy's penis. Never mind that there were no accusations of rape or any kind of force, just an unreliable allegation that he touched a boy's penis. Regardless of how wrong you might think that may be, how does it justify putting a man on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list and featuring him on the "America's Most Wanted" TV show? Aren't there enough murderers, bank robbers, thieves, and actual rapists (you know - the kind who used force) to lead that list?

Of course, Jon Schillaci was also the webmaster for a leading site where posters presented a view that contradicted the State's official teachings. In other words, he was a heretic against the State. All of a sudden it makes sense why the government targeted him and put him in jail. Modern tyrannies don't say they are censoring dissidents. They always give some plausible reason why they arrest those who challenge them.

Alternately, consider the case of Jack McClellan, a girl lover whom the State of California issued a restraining order against because he openly advocated for the rights of pedophiles. This restraining order was so broad that it essentially required Jack to leave California even though he was never convicted, or even seriously accused, of any crime.

These are only two of the more prominent cases.

No, the United States doesn't suppress dissent. No, the United States doesn't put people in jail for expressing opinions. They always find another excuse - except when they don't.

Comment what else has the government lied about? (Score 1) 185

I beg leave to go diverge from the subject at hand for a bit, but I think it is relevant. Although we all know China censors the internet, our greater concern is that all the other nations of the world will follow - or are already following - China's example.

These leaks have proven that all our "democratic" governments routinely lie to their employers (the people). Naturally this should cause us to ask what else our governments have lied about.

Of personal concern to me are the lies told about pedophilia and child abuse: specifically, the truth - from many sources - is that non-pedophiles are more likely to abuse children than pedophiles, that females are more likely to abuse children than males, and that parents are more likely to abuse children than non-parents.

So who do the government and their media accomplices target while claiming to protect children? Non-parent male pedophiles. "Stranger danger" and all that.

I suspect that the government believes that pedophiles, by offering children freedom and affection, are a threat to the power of the state, because they offer a compelling alternative narrative to that which the state force feeds its charges during 12 years of compulsory indoctrination - which is, of course, that they must obey the state at all times, no matter what the state might do to them.

I am looking forward to the day that WikiLeaks receives some inside information from the National Center for Misusing and Exploiting Children.

I say that this is of personal concern to me, but it should also be of great concern to the entire public. Our western governments routinely use the fear of pedophiles to justify the apparatus of censorship. Why should the government be allowed the capability to censor websites? Because they might contain images of naked children, naturally. Why should the government have the right to snoop on our emails? Well, how else are we going to stop those evil pedophiles - you know, those male, non-related people who aren't abusing children? The people of the Western world will never be able to challenge the installation and use of the apparatus of censorship until the demonization of pedophiles and the legal discrimination against pedophiles and children ceases.

It remains to be seen whether the public will be able to let go of their prejudices long enough to save themselves.

Comment only partially true (Score 1) 527

Certainly the OP shouldn't be making a shrine to his children's mother, and require them to make daily devotions to her . . .

But memory is also how some of us honor those who came before us, and remember all that they did for us to make us who we are. I am in a rare condition of having video of relatives who died 70 years ago. Perhaps it is best that it is just a short clip showing them as living, breathing human beings, but I am glad to have it.

I *do* agree with those who think that too much video is just a distraction. My general belief is that video memories should be restricted to one hour per year. Even so, no one will want to look at 90 hours of video of themselves when they are 90.

There may be some exceptions for special events, and written memories are far more valuable as they take the least time to review. Stories about the past are best written down, with a few audio or video samples to go with them.

Comment more on those thoughts (Score 1) 527

When I saw the original article this was my thought too - the many stories my grandparents and parents have told me about their childhoods - or even *their* parents' childhoods - give me a sense of continuity that pictures alone cannot give.

Simple text files can capture many of these, especially if your wife does well with writing, and having it directly from the source instead of half-remembered memories is invaluable. Memory is notoriously unreliable, after all - especially memories of what someone else told you.

Likewise, any information about family and ancestry - now is the time to pass that information down, and while you're at it go ahead and record your own information - various little stories from your life, and your parents and grandparents too. Maybe a few on video, but written form is even better for compactness and usability.

All the best to you and your family.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks.

Working...