On 04 Jul 2010 I stormed the castle called alt.fan.frank.mccoy and heard
Fred B. Brown cry out in news:4c31119f$0$255$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>
> "ThePsyko" <thepsyko@itookmyprozac.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9DAB58CB0A652LifeIsGood@nntp.petitmorte.net...
>> On 04 Jul 2010 I stormed the castle called alt.fan.frank.mccoy and
>> heard Fred B. Brown cry out in
>> news:4c3083af$0$292$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>>
>>>
>>> "ThePsyko" <thepsyko@itookmyprozac.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9DA854A1DE1EBLifeIsGood@nntp.petitmorte.net...
>>>> On 30 Jun 2010 I stormed the castle called alt.fan.frank.mccoy and
>>>> heard XXX cry out in news:20100630202630.424$vV@newsreader.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Baal <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hash: SHA512
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ThePsyko wrote in alt.callahans on Wednesday 30 June 2010 11:35
>>>>>> in Message-ID: <Xns9DA7574E7D421LifeIsGood@nntp.petitmorte.net>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> Hmmmm... who else posts in these groups??? Ultimate Tool,
>>>>>> >> Boobandcarlos,
>>>>>> >> ThePsychopath. If these are "pedophile groups" then that
>>>>>> >> makes YOU assholes pedophiles, as well.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I only post to AC when replying to a crosspost.. but you can
>>>>>> > continue to beat this dead horse if it makes you feel better -
>>>>>> > being called names by the likes of you doesn't really bother me
>>>>>> > any
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He has a bit of a tendency to go overboard sometimes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Psyko, the thing I like about you is that you can be reasoned
>>>>>> with;
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to think that too, but he corrected me on that point.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not perfect... Child sexual abuse is an powerful issue and if I
>>>> come across as unreasonable at times, I'm not the only one. I
>>>> don't always see you (and many others) as being reasonable, or even
>>>> worth the effort of taking a deep breath and trying to reason with
>>>> you (and others) when you seem so far out of touch with the reality
>>>> that is society. But I try... sometimes I wonder why I bother, but
>>>> I do.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ThePsyko
>>>> Public Enemy #7
>>>>
>>>> **Pissing off the planet, one person at a time**
>>>
>>> Maybe you should consider our point of view that most of the laws
>>> that supposedly 'protect children' are actually designed to infringe
>>> on the rights
>>> of adults. Look at COPPA for instance, supposedly to protect
>>> children on-line but actually reduced the Internet to the level of a
>>> 5 year old. Then there was the provision that if an image "appeared
>>> to be underage" it was child porn even if it could be proven that
>>> the model was of legal age when the photo was taken. Clearly this
>>> was aimed at taking down the adult porn industry where most of the
>>> porn actresses are 18-early 20's and some are petite enough to
>>> "appear to be underage" if a clever prosecutor so desired.
>>> Currently the FTC and Congress are trying to re-write COPPA to turn
>>> it into an age verification mandate for the Internet.
>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/07/dont-turn-coppa-age-verificati
>>> on -mandateIf this becomes law our rights to anonymous speech on
>>> the Internet willvanish.Oh and by the way, for those who are
>>> unaware, Frank was released on hisown recognizance, that means he
>>> did not have to post bail. Shows the courthas no fear he will flee
>>> and likely placed no restrictions on hisactivities.Frank also
>>> stated that it was his attorney and not the court who advised
>>> himnot to discuss his case.
>>>
>>
>> I'm already against what they are trying to do with COPPA. Believe
>> it or not, I do not blindly accept anything done "in the name of
>> children". I just don't believe adults have the right to use their
>> position of power and authority to exploit children for their own
>> gratification.
>
> No one has the right to exploit anyone. Unfortunatly children have
> always been exploited to one degree or another. They have been forced
> to work in the fields from around the age of 4 or 5, to work in
> factories alongside dangerous machinery. To work in weaving mills
> because they were small enough to crawl inside the weaving machines to
> re-thread the needles. Pre-teen boys went into battle as drummers in
> the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. When Vietnam War protestors pointed
> out that the government was sending minors, boys under 21, off to war
> did Congress raise the draft age to 21? No, they lowered the age of
> majority to 18 so that minors were now adults. So much for
> 'protecting' children, huh?
18 year olds really aren't children now are they?
>
>> and since you brought up Frank (which really wasn't the focus of this
>> part of the thread), I never had a problem with him writing his
>> stories. I don't like them, they disgust me, and I think it takes a
>> sick mind to come up with them, but if you've noticed I've stayed out
>> of much of that debate. Had he written them and kept them to
>> himself, then none of this would have been an issue. I have more of
>> an issue with the fact that so many pictures and videos were found on
>> his system. People can say all they want that "once the pictures are
>> taken, no more harm is done by people looking at them" but the fact
>> that the pictures are "out there" isn't something a child, even many
>> years later, can just blow off and not be bothered by. Knowing those
>> pictures are possibly being passed around, and knowing that people
>> are likely masturbating to them, always lives in the back of the
>> mind. (certainly there will always be exceptions, with some of those
>> children wanting the photos done and not regreting it later, but
>> those are very few - for the most part, they are not ok with it)
>
> This is where we disagree, the harm is in taking the picure or video,
> not when someone who had nothing to do with creating them, views them.
The actual viewing of the photos causes no harm, the harm is done by
having them out there. By collecting and distributing, you are part of
the problem.
> The subject in the images has no idea who, or how many, or even if the
> images are posted on the Internet, might be viewing them.
> Who is the criminal? The person who took the pictures or the person
> who later views them?
> Why does the govenment criminalize viewing the images? The answer is
> simple, control. They can describe them in any manner they want.
> Politicians and burearucrats love to create hobgoblins to menace the
> public with. They know they can panic people, and when people are
> threatened with something they can't themselves deal with they look to
> the government to protect them.
In genera, I would agree. But I think you're wrong in this case.... When
it comes to child sexual abuse (which by definition, included child
pornography) I think many people would *love* to "deal with" these cases
themselves. It's the government that is protecting the criminals in many
cases by not allowing such. Even if that anger is misdirected at the
viewers rather than the producers, most people find the whole subject so
vile and disgusting they don't really care as the viewers are part of the
problem.
> Think back to just after September 11,
> 2001 and how quickly Congress rushed the Patriot Act into law. A law
> that tramples all over Constitutional and civil rights, a law that
> probably never would have made it through Congress at any other time
> over strenuous public objections. But the Bush administration made it
> sound like if the Patriot Act was not enacted the government would not
> be able to protect the public. They have pretty much done the same
> thing with child porn, blown it all out of proportion and kept it in
> the public eye by arresting people for viewing it.
> If the majority of the public were to be able to view it, most would
> wonder what the fuss was all about.
?? Now I know we all like to think the general population thinks the way
we do (it makes us "normal"), but to think that most people would "wonder
what the fuss was all about" with child porn if they could just see it is
really reaching. Are you seriously trying to say that if everybody could
just sit down and look at some child porn, that it would become ok?
>
>> How do I know this? It happened to me. I had a pic taken of me when
>> I was younger - I won't go into the details but suffice it to say it
>> was not one I wanted taken, and certainly didn't ever want it seen by
>> anybody. For years I wondered what had ever happened to it, hoping
>> it had been destroyed but never knowing. When my father died (who
>> had the picture), I wanted nothing to do with him or his stuff (he
>> left everything to me and nothing to my sisters - out of guilt I
>> would assume) but I had to go clean out his place... why? Because
>> the rest of my family was going and all I could think of was "what if
>> he still has that picture". I didn't want to have to relive all that
>> guilt, embarassment and shame again if that picture resurfaced so I
>> went.. and I cleaned out his shit, and I suffered through the panic
>> attacks that it brought on, and I dealt with the disgust and anger
>> that it brought up.. and I never found the photo. For all I know he
>> destroyed it. Or he scanned it in and it's sitting on his computer
>> hard drive (which I have in my basement, untouched because I haven't
>> ever been able to bring myself to see what's on there). Maybe it's
>> floating around cyberspace, maybe it's not - I will likely never
>> know. It's been 30+ years since that photo was taken, and I'm at the
>> point now where I don't give a fuck, but even 5 years ago that wasn't
>> the case.
>
> I can understand how you feel.
Obviously, by your above statements, you don't.
> My advice would be to put it behind you
> and move on with your life.
I have.. I only brought it up to put a personal touch on it.. to
hopefully get you to realize those are real people, with real feelings
and they most likely don't want you to be looking at visual depictions of
their abuse. Trying to maybe click something in your head that perhaps
its just wrong... these are children who didn't want to be going through
what they went through, most people see things like that and are outraged
at what they must have gone through. People like you (meaning CP
viewers, not you specifically) may say "oh poor kid" whack whack whack..
where's the respect, the empathy for these children? It's all about your
own gratification and instead of trying to stop the abuse, you just look
for more...
and you wonder why people call you animals...
> To paraphrase the alcoholoics Serenity
> Prayer, you need the wisdom to accept the things you can't change,
> change the things you can and know the difference between the two. You
> can't change the past, you can only put it behind you and move on.
>
>> So yeah, I think it's not only disgusting to "collect" those kinds of
>> photos, but it's selfish and incredibly disrespectful of the children
>> in those photos. And to me, that isn't what being a "man" is about -
>> it's what pathetic, disgusting pigs do.
>>
> Frankly I think people become infatuated with CP because it's a
> novelty. It's hard to find and people become like coin and stamp
> collectors, always looking for something new.
?? lol... most people don't even want to HEAR about CP, much less go
looking for it... it's not a "novelty" to the typical person, it's a
horrible reminder of how cruel and horrible people can be.
>
> Anyway, just my thoughts. I'll be gone for a week, taking the
> grandsons to the beach for a week.
>
Enjoy... hopefully you're having better weather than us..
--
ThePsyko
Public Enemy #7
**Pissing off the planet, one person at a time**
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 |
|