[–]▶ No.43568>>43569 >>43573 >>43622 >>43672 >>44112 >>46642 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]
Furfag implicated in CP possess, suicides
>Suicide note IB journal http://archive.is/pGGzy
>Public obituary http://archive.is/qqCvT
>Some faggot made a goodbye journal http://archive.is/eECjU
>More popular faggot told everyone about it http://archive.is/uBgyF
>His FA https://www.furaffinity.net/user/kilted.jackalope
>His IB https://inkbunny.net/daedalus
Nobody I recognized, but I thought it'd be worth making a thread over for discussion
>This captcha
▶ No.43569>>43581 >>43598
>>43568 (OP)
I mean, this is all so nice, but reading through all of this only makes me think "literally who?" and "why the fuck is it okay for someone to have been involved with cp possession get excused and forgiven because they killed themselves"
▶ No.43570
▶ No.43572
lol how did he kill him self I hope he fucking died in the worst way
▶ No.43573>>43576
>>43568 (OP)
it's cute he implied to believe he's going to heaven for committing suicide, call me edgy all you want but I'm fucking glad resources wont be wasted on that fag's existence anymore
▶ No.43576>>43577 >>43587 >>43595 >>43622 >>43721
>>43573
Wait what?
If you kill yourself you go to hell, iirc
So he's most likely burning there now with the other kiddie fiddlers.
▶ No.43577>>43759
>>43576
He says "come up here and join me". Unless that was related to hanging himself. What a mess he must've left behind.
▶ No.43579
rumors say there was a sticky note with the words "Follow my example! :3" written on it found at the scene of his suicide
▶ No.43580
I love how whenever a furfag dies, suddenly everyone was apparently really great friends with them, even though zero evidence of a relationship exists. No art trades, no gift art, no comments, sometimes the victim(perpetrator?) won't even have the guy pretending to know him on his watchlist.
It's really fucking pathetic, I bet they do it for page views. Not that I'm some moralfag that wants to respect the dead or whatever, it's a fucking corpse, who cares what happens to it, but an attention whore is an attention whore and piggybacking off of a recently deceased person's "fame" is about as Jewish as it gets.
Yeah, yeah, I really believe that this guy that only has 98 shouts and 308 watchers was super close friends with all these people on Inkbunny who are mourning him. "ohhh you were so sweet I'm going to cherish our memories forever" hahahahahhahahhaah. Fuck these guys. They didn't even know he existed till this happened.
▶ No.43581>>43585
>>43569
I wouldn't excuse it, myself. The emotional whoo is just pathetic. This literally who can be love-love-love all they like(d), but it appears they had a different face if we had known them privately.
>defined by an attitude of love and positivity
Basic self-protection. Look so positive that nobody can believe you're a git, and you won't get caught being a git. People who actually are deep down positive can get good reputations even if their personality is rough.
From his last FA journal:
>Boys in general, because yummy
>The love and tolerance and overall comradery I have found in this fandom that makes me feel so happy to be a part of it. <3
Yeah, I sure trust this guy dindu nuffin, sure.
Some things shouldn't BE tolerated. Child abuse is a chain that passes from victim to victim.
▶ No.43584
Sounds like somebody didn't want to get their asshole rennovated in prison
▶ No.43585>>43612
>>43581
>This literally who can be love-love-love all they like(d), but it appears they had a different face if we had known them privately.
That describes the vast majority of furfags. It's the easiest way to cover your ass, by sounding fake and forced as fuck by acting like a hippy paragon of peace love and tolerance the likes of which would make a first gen mlp:fim fag want to grab you by the wrist and drag you aside to calmly tell you to chill the fuck out
There are far too many people out there that are putting on the very same mask this guy did in order to escape the consequence of their sins and it's fucking disgusting that no one questions whether or not the person may have a reason for trying to make everyone and as many people as possible love them and stay on their good sides. It is always suspiscious.
▶ No.43586>>43589 >>43635
"For everyone else. I believe I found the arrest charge. Arrested 9/1 possestion of CP(just the charge as far as I'm aware). So with a bit of luck Dae is alive.
I don't want to pry onto his personal life and so did not post details someone with a bit of know how could find if they were truly worried."
he pussed out. they always do. he just wanted attention before he goes to jail.
i hate pussies like this. there are methods of suicide that have an over 99% success rate and these attention whores always half ass the ones that have a less than 10% success rate like wrist slitting, and people still consider that an attempted suicide. it should be cosnidered self-harming and a cry for attention. fuck this pussy and fuck the kikes pretending that they had a great relationship with him. it's gonna be embarrassing when he gets out of jail and sees all these people pretending to know him and asks them "who the fuck are you? we've never even spoken to each other, why are you pretending to mourn me and making up stories?"
▶ No.43587
>>43576
by just looking at shit from this thread alone apparently he was also gay or at least had gay tendencies, so he was damned and conning himself from the start
▶ No.43589
>>43586
Congratus anon, you've cracked the code on 90% of these suicide posts.
▶ No.43595>>43597 >>43599
Wow, I actually kinda "know" this guy from some stories he's written. Usually when this kind of shit happens it's somebody that makes me go "wait, who?" Not that I'm sad, or anything. I couldn't care less, don't feel it's any sort of loss, or whatever else. The only thing it makes me feel is a tiny creeping fear that I, myself, might still be involved with you fuckers in this fandom when I reach the age of 42. What a scary thought!
I find it moderately hilarious that, if he had lived in the UK (or any former crown territories) just his cub content would be legally considered the same as child porn, and would be enough to to convict him in exactly the same manner. That is the kind of world we live in. Apparently, actually raping children is so banal and unimportant that it's okay to punish them the same as people who arranged pixels to symbolize a child.
>>43576
>Believing in the Christian Hell
>In the year 1000+1000+10+5+2
I think you're the one who should hang himself.
▶ No.43597
>>43595
well memed furiend uwu, can i suck your yiffy wiffy reddit cock?
▶ No.43598>>45549
>>43569
>guy is dead
>HE SHOULD STILL GO TO JAIL
nigga what are they gonna do, jail his ghost in a pocket 4th dimension?
▶ No.43599>>43618
>40 years old
>has his electronics taken by the feds
>is scared enough over it that he commits suicide
You don't get to the age of 40 and commit suicide just out of nowhere like that. He most likely was worried about something like cub porn or something way worse and just hoped that by casting doubt on it that they'd all assume he was a pcool guy and not a child predator.
He was also clearly unmarried and had no children. He has a journal describing thanksgiving dinner and only talks about meeting his parents and aunt/uncle. So he clearly had nothing to lose and most likely did very little with his life professionally.
>>43595
>The only thing it makes me feel is a tiny creeping fear that I, myself, might still be involved with you fuckers in this fandom when I reach the age of 42. What a scary thought!
Most people when they get to their 30s-40s start doing things like starting families and don't have time to associate with a fandom that's mostly teenagers and people in their 20s. It becomes really awkward and they really stand out among everyone else as that old dude.
▶ No.43612
>>43585
Yeah I know it's common as shit
I'm dimly hoping that by picking at it I can make the actually nice people wise up to the ways they provide cover for less nice people
And if none of them are actually nice (sometimes I get misanthropic enough to wonder) then I can at least be a voice in the wilderness warning off the broader culture
▶ No.43618>>43699
>>43599
It's possible he was essentially committing seppuku to spare his family the bad publicity of an official investigation that would have his face and name plastered over every evening news outlet from here to China. When you have "illegal content" (varies depending on your country) they typically charge by "count", so if there's a couple hundred pictures on your harddrive, it'll add up to literally life in prison. There is no way to avoid it; the guy's life was completely over, so whether he had "nothing to lose" is irrelevant.
>Most people when they get to their 30s-40s start doing things like starting families
Fuckin' normies, amirite?
▶ No.43621
i gave the text a full read and what i can imagine that happened is he took naked pics of a consenting naked girl, most likely a teenager, and then someone found out because furfags are idiots and teenagers are idiots.
looks like he killed himself out of fear more than guilt, and from the text, he didn't even score.
▶ No.43622>>43623 >>46642
>>43568 (OP)
Assuming this is true, I feel kinda bad for him tbh. Let's remember there's a difference between pixels on a screen and actually raping a kid.
>>43576
>If you kill yourself you go to hell
No that's a bullshit lie made up by the catholic church because so many people were killing themselves because they wanted to go to heaven. Look it up in the bible, nowhere does it say killing yourself is a sin.
▶ No.43623>>43674 >>43956 >>43986 >>46642
>>43622
>Assuming this is true, I feel kinda bad for him tbh. Let's remember there's a difference between pixels on a screen and actually raping a kid.
I agree and disagree.
On the one hand, information shouldn't be limited or restricted, because then you get thoughtcrime.
But on the other hand, CP (even consuming it) creates a market for abusers etc etc, and it really is one of the worst crimes possible (the diddling), right up there with murder.
▶ No.43624>>43625 >>43647
The saddest part about all this is the comments. He kills himself and all anyone can talk about on every site is "jerking it to children should be legal." Imagine that being your legacy. He died for that. What a waste of life.
▶ No.43625>>43626
>>43624
>he died for that
he died to escape unjust punishment and a life of torture, he wasn't trying to leave any kind of "legacy".
>jerking it to x should be legal
jerking it to ANYTHING should be legal as long as the anything in question is free. if you're funding child pornography that's wrong, but who is gonna get hurt because you fap to a leaked video from 10 years ago? nobody. and if you think otherwise you're an idiot.
▶ No.43626>>43627
>>43625
>Who is gonna get hurt because you fap to a leaked video
The child in that video, who was abused for the purpose of your masturbation habits. You can jerk off to kids all you want but at least take responsibility for the damage you cause, you sick piece of shit. Unbelievable how detached from reality some people can be.
▶ No.43627>>43632
>>43626
>if you watch a video of a murder, you murder the person again!
>if you watch a video of a robbery, you're stealing!
figures, you are an idiot. you just want to feel morally superior on the internet. sad.
▶ No.43628>>43631 >>43633
Reading through this thread, I can't believe what insufferable, nasty, little cunts a lot of you are. Didn't think so many of you would be christfags on a furry board, either.
▶ No.43631
>>43628
>when you masturbate to gay nigga tranny porn and shitting dick nipples on a half-dragon centaur every single day but someone jerking off to a picture of a naked 13 year old taken in the year 2005 that was leaked on the internet is "too much"
t. /fur/ moralfags
▶ No.43632>>43637
>>43627
Not once in my life have I seen a bigger case of false equivalency on this board, and the board owner just got done telling us that all discussion is political and not allowed. I cannot believe you not only jumped that hurdle of stupidity, you've actually set the bar at a barely sub-orbital level.
▶ No.43633>>43634
>>43628
are you one of the guys that wrote a big sob post pretending to be his friend when really you only talked to him once/never and you're mad cause i called you out on it?
▶ No.43634>>43636 >>43648 >>43651
>>43633
Never knew the guy, just a bit surprised at exactly how devoid of empathy most millenials are. But you're religious, so that makes you better than everyone else, in that little pinhead of yours.
▶ No.43635>>43649
he didn't die. i posted it in this thread. guess it was missed by everyone since i didn't post a le epic funny face next to it to grab your attention. >>43586
▶ No.43636>>43639
>>43634
>But you're religious, so that makes you better than everyone else, in that little pinhead of yours.
>t. "holier than thou" reddit atheist
how ironic
▶ No.43637
>>43632
>complains about false equivalency while simultaneously equalizing watching a video of an action to actually performing said action.
why do i keep seeing this phrase everywhere, its the epic new "shield buzzword" to discredit opposing arguments.
tell me EXACTLY how is it a false equivalency? you wouldn't call someone who watches a video of a robbery a thief, then you wouldn't call someone who watches a video of rape a rapist. not to mention the sex could be consensual. by your logic everyone who watches porn is a rapist.
>b-b-b-but FALSE EQUIVALENCY!!
nigga fuck off. go read a dictionary.
▶ No.43640
▶ No.43647>>43650
>>43624
Hey, he quite literally didn't HAVE to die for that, instead he made it his legacy. His choice to do so.
▶ No.43648>>43650
>>43634
You're very likely a millenial yourself considering how many people use that term and aren't aware of the time period it covers.
▶ No.43649>>43650 >>43675
>>43635
>got a reply
>e-everyone missed my post! g-guys where's my (you)s!!!! this is insufficient!!!
Go back to halfchan and stay there if you care that fucking much about individual replies.
▶ No.43650
>>43647
>>43648
>>43649
thats not what a legacy is. can you go back to liberal dumbfuck land please?
▶ No.43651>>43660
>>43634
>just a bit surprised at exactly how devoid of empathy most millenials are
That's really more of a chan thing than a "millenial" one.
▶ No.43660>>43667 >>43674 >>43677
>>43651
Most chans are made up of millenials.
▶ No.43667
>>43660
But not 8chan, especially not its /fur/ board! We're all epic badass oldfags from the usenet days that have earned our right to shit on people who dare be a day and more younger than us!
▶ No.43672
>>43568 (OP)
Noone on the internet reads such a wall of text, not even as a suicide note.
▶ No.43674>>43680 >>43702
>>43623
>But on the other hand, CP (even consuming it) creates a market for abusers
People are going to abuse kids whether or not there's a market for it. This is the same kind of faulty logic that IP apologists used to attack piracy, "if people can get movies for free no one will ever buy movies again!"
>>43660
>chans
Newfag detected, they're called imageboards.
▶ No.43675
>>43649
i don't care if i get replies or not but 30 more posts are still talking about him like he's dead when he's not.
▶ No.43677>>43680
>>43660
>calling it 'chans'
And you'll swear to fucking god you're not a millennial yourself.
▶ No.43680>>43681 >>43802
>>43674
>>43677
Cry more about it you faggots.
▶ No.43681>>43683
>>43680
you seem to have been lost on your way to halfchan
▶ No.43683>>43688
>>43681
You got me, millenial. You've hurt me right to the core of my very being.
▶ No.43688>>43695
>>43683
too much effort wasted on a 'no u' post
▶ No.43695
>>43688
You're too clever for me. Each jab is like a spear through my heart.
▶ No.43699>>43704 >>45550
>>43618
>It's possible he was essentially committing seppuku to spare his family the bad publicity of an official investigation that would have his face and name plastered over every evening news outlet from here to China
That's exactly what he did
If he was prone to suicide he probably would've done it long before the age of 40. You don't live 40 years and just straight up kill yourself because you were accused of being a pedophile and you know you're innocent.
He was clearly guilty as sin and wants to avoid ruining the lives of everyone around him by hoping killing himself would prevent the news from getting out and end the investigation.
>Fuckin' normies, amirite?
Once you get to that age all of the things you normally like, like video games, porn, fucking random women, going to conventions etc. They all become intensely cringey for you at that age. Everyone you associate with is really young and they all see you as "that old dude". You can see how weird and out of place older people look at furry conventions.
And it's largely because society in general expects you to have better things to do at that age. Like running your own business or starting a family.
▶ No.43702>>43705 >>43802
>>43674
>People are going to abuse kids whether or not there's a market for it.
Yes but creating a market for it then creates a demand for it. A person is less likely to see a psychiatrist for it if they have a steady supply of fresh porn within a few mouseclicks.
It's also that because there's a market and demand, it will eventually lead to a demand for irl "authentic" porn which directly leads to irl abuse. And this creates more pedophiles due to how it's pretty much confirmed now that pedophiles tend to have been sexually abused at a young age.
▶ No.43704
>>43699
>like video games, porn,
Nope, still like those things, at least. You know you don't stop living the second you hit 40, eh? Just because your dad started turning into a mad cunt the second you popped out doesn't mean we all do.
▶ No.43705>>43710 >>43714 >>43724 >>43768 >>43775 >>43802
>>43702
>A person is less likely to see a psychiatrist
If you confess having pedophile desires to a shrink, he WILL report you to the police. It's a guarantee. The "doctor-patient confidentiality" thing doesn't apply in cases where the doctor thinks you are a danger to yourself or others (for example: if you confess having desires of murdering your spouse), and in all cases off pedophile "thoughtcrime". If society didn't create a literal equivalency between thought and action (like punishing for fapping it to CP often with MORE jail time than someone who actually molested a child), then maybe these people would be tempted to get help.
>it will eventually lead to a demand for irl "authentic" porn which directly leads to irl abuse
Slippery slope fallacy.
I should say that "possession" of illegal things, whether CP or drugs or whatever else, are the only cases in which the burden of the proof is not on the prosecution, They do not have to prove that anyone was DIRECTLY harmed by the defendant having acquired that content or substance. It is merely assumed that they have, and they are immediately found guilty.
If there were any sense to the justice system, someone who had CP would have to be proved guilty of directly causing harm (directly molested a child and took photos, or paid for the content from a known child-trafficking ring, etc) or else they walk. The problem with the American legal system is that it will gladly lynch a million innocent people before daring to let one guilty person go free.
Here's a fun thought experiment: suppose you took naked and lewd pictures of yourself as a kid and kept them around on your computer. Never shared them or anything. Now, you have reached adulthood, and look at those pictures again. You're breaking the law! But who is the child that is being harmed by your action? The past version of yourself that no longer exists??
Oh, but you COULD use those pictures to groom a child, right? You COULD use them to trade for someone else's CP, right? You COULD decide you were cute as a kid and go on to molest a real kid, right? I don't think there is any trouble for you to recognize the bullshit in punishing someone for things they COULD or MIGHT do. That is the definition of thoughtcrime. Yet, for having those pictures you are guilty all the same, in the eyes of the law. The prosecution does not have to prove that you DID anything, just that you COULD. Where is the sense in that?
▶ No.43710>>43775
>>43705
>The "doctor-patient confidentiality" thing doesn't apply in cases where the doctor thinks you are a danger to yourself or others
I don't know how it is in the US, but in Germany you get 'deported' to a psychiatric hospital and get treated. Honestly, I believe simply being a pedophile does not make you dangerous. It's a huge step to actually rape a child.
Anyway, I agree. Watching CP is a victimless crime. Browse the DarkWeb and you will notice that most CP, Zoophilia, Zoosadism and other hardcore fetish-sites offer their stuff for free. Still, I'm conflicted. Is watching CP for a pedophile catharsis, or will it make him more likely to rape?
Also: I don't see any credible confirmation that he actually possessed CP. On the other hand, I'm not sure what else it could've been. Bestiality? Maybe creepshots? Or... did he go through something similar like Seth Rich?
▶ No.43714>>43719 >>43720 >>43725
>>43705
Guess what? The law is the law.
There is no moral or logical leeway for it. It applies as written. No more and no less.
▶ No.43718>>43814
>tfw i used to call myself daedalus ages ago
▶ No.43719
>>43714
What are you getting at? It that supposed to be some kind of justification for something? It doesn't address a single point in the argument they're having, and just sounds like some random matter-of-fact interjection.
▶ No.43720
>>43714
GUESS WE DON'T NEED THE SUPREME COURT THEN LOL you fucking retard
▶ No.43721
>>43576
hell is a social and religious construct.
▶ No.43724>>43802
>>43705
strict liability laws should be banned.
▶ No.43725>>43775 >>43779
>>43714
Uh huh. They never change, either, for they are as absolute as the Commandments wrought by God. If the laws are immutable and perfect, they WOULD never change, because they can never be wrong.
That is why we still have black slaves, women cannot vote or own land, and it's illegal to produce or possess alcohol. Cheers!
▶ No.43759
>>43577
Do you think he suicided in his fur suit?
▶ No.43768
>>43705
>>43705
>I should say that "possession" of illegal things, whether CP or drugs or whatever else, are the only cases in which the burden of the proof is not on the prosecution, They do not have to prove that anyone was DIRECTLY harmed by the defendant having acquired that content or substance. It is merely assumed that they have, and they are immediately found guilty.
They could just say that it's possession of material deemed obscene anyway.
▶ No.43769
>all these pedos in the thread defending CP
FBI's gonna have a field day
▶ No.43775>>43802 >>43845
>>43705
>If you confess having pedophile desires to a shrink, he WILL report you to the police
It depends on the country and circumstance. Like if he is in a position where he can actively harm someone. (like he mentions being in a close relationship with a child and having feelings for them). I've heard of pedophiles who left their therapists specifically because the therapist threatened to call the police because they were "having a friend over".
As well there is a legitimate argument for forcibly institutionalizing pedophiles or making them choose chemical castration.
>pedophile "thoughtcrime"
The thing with pedophiles is they are ticking time bombs. Pedophiles can ruin a person's life irreparably and destroy a large amount of their prospects in life while they are children. It's imperative to identify one and make them seek treatment if they act on those impulses through pornography.
>If society didn't create a literal equivalency between thought and action (like punishing for fapping it to CP often with MORE jail time than someone who actually molested a child), then maybe these people would be tempted to get help.
They wouldn't get help regardless because pedophilia is considered one of the worst things in society. Even murderers consider pedophilia worse than anything else, to the point where some will deliberately target pedophiles when they get to prison because they see it as redeeming themselves if they murder one. Regardless of if they make the porn legal or illegal, being a pedophile is never going to be looked upon nicely in Western Society.
>Slippery slope fallacy.
It isn't. Creating a demand for artificial porn will eventually lead to a market for irl porn. Like there already is, it's just underground on the deep web.
>They do not have to prove that anyone was DIRECTLY harmed by the defendant having acquired that content or substance
Possession of the substance is key. It doesn't matter harm. Would you be okay with finding out that your neighbor has been beating off to pictures of your child even if your kid wasn't aware of it?
>It is merely assumed that they have
They find evidence. It's easy to find because pedophiles tend to be stupid. Police even have dogs that can locate flash drives by training them to smell chemicals on them.
>they are immediately found guilty.
>immediately
the justice system is never immediate. It tends to be these pedophiles accept a plea bargain to get it over with because the evidence is found pretty quickly and they know it's a losing battle.
>If there were any sense to the justice system, someone who had CP would have to be proved guilty of directly causing harm
Pedophiles are ticking time bombs. If you had a child and found out that your neighbor was beating off to pictures of your kid you wouldn't think "well he has the right to do that because he isn't directly harming him".
>The problem with the American legal system is that it will gladly lynch a million innocent people before daring to let one guilty person go free.
Pedophiles are the opposite of innocent. They know what they're doing is fucking wrong but they do it anyway.
>Now, you have reached adulthood, and look at those pictures again. You're breaking the law!
That's not how CP laws work
>That is the definition of thoughtcrime
Distribution of CP is a different matter entirely, it's not thought crime it's predicated on an action.
>Yet, for having those pictures you are guilty all the same, in the eyes of the law
Evidence of illicit materials isn't the equivalent of freedom of speech. I don't consider CP a first amendment issue (and I guarantee there's no way you would be okay with it if you had a child of your own).
>>43710
>Honestly, I believe simply being a pedophile does not make you dangerous
The risk is enormous and you can't trust a pedophile to simply not do it, especially if they don't admit to getting help for it.
If a pedophile gets admitted to a psychiatric hospital and gets treated then it's a different story. However when one is too cowardly to admit to it and gets discovered I have zero sympathy for them. These people are mentally ill and need treatment before they do something that will irreparably ruin someone's life forever.
>will it make him more likely to rape?
There's an argument to be made that if one has ready access to CP he will feel more emboldened to do it.
>I don't see any credible confirmation that he actually possessed CP
The police seized his electronics. If he was truly innocent I doubt he would've just up and killed himself. He was most likely worried about it to the point where he figured suicide would be better than living to see his parents disappointment at him.
>>43725
>laws against cp are the equivalent of slavery, women's suffrage and prohibition
>this is what pedophiles actually believe
▶ No.43779
>>43725
>my cummies are a human right
Never change, pedophiles.
▶ No.43791>>43801
>No Encyclopedia Dramatica article yet
I'm surprised
▶ No.43801
>>43791
the only people who get ED articles about them have made an enemy tremendous (and autistic) enough to bother writing one. no one just writes them for fun, writing an article is fucking work, they write them because of a vendetta.
i know people several times more cringey and noteworthy than half the guys on ED but they'll go unnoticed until they cross the wrong autist that's willing to put down the work and time necessary to shill it and keep it relevant and samefag.
▶ No.43802>>43817 >>43818
>>43680
stay triggered moralcuck.
>>43702
>creating a market for it then creates a demand for it
wut.
So if I take a shit in a napkin and try and sell it online for $1,000 someone will come along and pay for it?
>>43705
A+ post
>>43724
Absolutely. And on that note, statuatory "rape" laws are fucking bullshit because they're also strict liability. That means if the girl you're dating is underage and she fakes a birth certificate, fakes a driver's license, gets her parents and friends to lie about her age for her; and if you have sex with her you'll still go to prison, for the crime of being lied to. The only way to defend against strict liability suits is to prove that it didn't happen.
>>43775
>It depends on the country and circumstance
No it depends on the psych's own personal discretion.
>As well there is a legitimate argument for forcibly institutionalizing pedophiles or making them choose chemical castration
For a fucking fetish? Downright retarded. Go back to leddit, moralfag.
>pedophiles is they are ticking time bombs
That's what they said about videogames and school shooters.
>Creating a demand for artificial porn will eventually lead to a market for irl porn
wrong, see above few quotes
>Would you be okay with finding out that your neighbor has been beating off to pictures of your child even if your kid wasn't aware of it?
Sure, why not. I don't let feels overrie my rationality
rest of your post is equally without substance. Stop reddit spacing, faggot.
▶ No.43809
Fuck, now we'll never see the rest of the Soccerballing series.
▶ No.43814
>>43718
Live forever, anon, and eventually you'll live long enough to be the last contender for the name Daedalus! I wish you the best!
▶ No.43817
>>43802
Pedophilia is often a sexuality for most pedophiles, not a fetish.
▶ No.43818>>43821 >>43834
>>43802
>So if I take a shit in a napkin and try and sell it online for $1,000 someone will come along and pay for it?
That's a false equivalency. There's no existing demand for that
There is a huge demand for child porn. And a huge amount of people that would pay for it and incentivize people to start charging for it.
>No it depends on the psych's own personal discretion.
Yes the psych can just snitch on the guy just like anyone else can. I'm pointing out that legally the psyche doesn't have to unless there's an actual crime being committed. Which is what the post was trying to claim wasn't the case.
>For a fucking fetish?
Pedophilia is a mental illness not a fetish.
They've proven there's now a correlation between pedophilia and being molested as a child. Meaning it has a direct cause and is something that can be prevented.
>That's what they said about videogames and school shooters.
>claiming video games and school shooters are the same as pedophiles
>wrong, see above few quotes
My statement wasn't rebutted, I pointed out that there's already a demand for irl porn. Allowing soft pedophile porn will directly lead to more hard core pedophile porn being produced.
>Sure, why not. I don't let feels overrie my rationality
I hope you don't reproduce
▶ No.43821
>>43818
>correlation
le correlation is causation
epic, friend. epic.
▶ No.43834
>>43818
Have you been reading what he's saying? 5 year old boys can't reproduce so his sexual interests thankfully won't lead to any kids he can abuse. You don't have to worry about his stain murking up the genepool for much longer.
▶ No.43845>>43852 >>44034
>>43775
Your entire post is an appeal to emotion fallacy. It all hinges on "If you had a child, you would want to indiscriminately murder all pedos, too!"
>That's not how CP laws work
Except it is. All pictures of underage children are treated the same in the eyes of the law. It doesn't matter if they are of you or another child. It doesn't matter if they were taken by an abuser or the child, themselves. It doesn't matter if the content is of the child by themselves or tied onto a table being forcibly raped. The law and society lumps all of it into one big pile of EVIL.
>Completely misunderstands my point about the mutability of laws
You really ARE that stupid, aren't you?
▶ No.43852>>43853 >>43911 >>43938
>>43845
>It all hinges on "If you had a child, you would want to indiscriminately murder all pedos, too!"
>Indiscriminately
>murder
I never said either of those things. I advocated for asylum/chemical castration which aren't the same things as murder.
>>43845
>All pictures of underage children are treated the same in the eyes of the law
>Have a photo album of your own kids
>Considered CP in the eyes of the law
>You really ARE that stupid, aren't you?
You're the one defending pedophiles
▶ No.43853
>>43852
>Have a photo album of your own kids
You have a photo album of pornographic pictures of your own kids? Holy shit anon, that's hardcore!
▶ No.43911>>43978
>>43852
Punishing someone for a crime they have yet to commit is fundamentally anti-justice
Looking at pictures of sexy kids isn't the same as molesting children, if you want to outlaw child pornography, you can't treat possessions as harshly as child rape, that would be the same as giving that junkie who lives in your dumpster the same punishment as the drug dealer who is killing your friend with his poison, completely disgusting an unjust.
Just because there is a faction of people you don't like doesn't mean you can break your own code of justice just so you can punish them, therefore, before the pedos actually go out and molest a child, you can't punish them, anything else would be barbarism. Even then, the severity of the violation must still be taken into consideration, just like rapes with adults.
It's funny to see people's logic break down completely and turning muzzie tier the moment the subject of pedos is brought up.
>you're not abandoning the principles of western justice in favor of mob lynchings, you're a pedo!
▶ No.43938>>43978
>>43852
>defending pedophiles
Considering the very strong connotation that the word "pedophile" and variations of it now have, should we make a distinction between "pedophile" and "minor-attracted individual?" Because people appear to conflate "pedophile" and "child molester" to such an extent that it may be better off to let the word take on the meaning people give it rather than try to use it for its original definition. And also going with the "person-first language" thing I suppose.
▶ No.43956>>43959 >>43986
>>43623
So we are all creating a market for zoophiles?
▶ No.43959>>43973
>>43956
I'm not sure if you noticed, but this isn't /zoo/
▶ No.43973>>43986
>>43959
Normies don't distinguish between the two, just like they don't distinguish between pixels and child rape. To them, we're all dogfuckers.
▶ No.43978>>43979
>>43911
>Punishing someone for a crime they have yet to commit is fundamentally anti-justice
That would be the case if not for the fact that CP is considered illicit material and illegal to have and distribute. Meaning, legally, a crime is being committed.
>Looking at pictures of sexy kids isn't the same as molesting children
I would argue it's a sign someone needs mental help more than anything else.
>If you want to outlaw child pornography, you can't treat possessions as harshly as child rape
Depending on the country CP is not treated as badly as child rape
>Just because there is a faction of people you don't like
It's not a "faction of people" it's a group of mentally ill individuals. You wouldn't call a group of schizophrenics a "faction".
>break your own code of justice just so you can punish them
They knew what they were doing when they found this material, and they did it anyway
>before the pedos actually go out and molest a child, you can't punish them
>Not stopping the pedophile before he starts to feed his mental illness and before he starts to feel more encouraged to rape a child.
There's only so much you can do to prevent pedophiles from raping children. You can't tell who a pedophile is before he does it, except for his pornography. If statistically the rate of child rape goes down because you bust people who have porn of it, then I'm all for it. I don't see child porn as a freedom of speech issue.
>Even then, the severity of the violation must still be taken into consideration, just like rapes with adults.
I consider child rape 10x worse than adult rape.
If an adult is raped. While they will feel traumatized by the activity, it's not going to permanently ruin their life if they get psychological help for it. A child that is raped has a stronger chance of becoming a pedophile themselves later in life. Almost like pedophilia is a virus that self perpetuates itself.
>It's funny to see people's logic break down completely and turning muzzie tier the moment the subject of pedos is brought up.
Because you're talking about it as if pedophiles as if they have the freedom to beat off to children. I don't think when the American constitution was being written the founding fathers were considering the rights of child molesters.
>you're not abandoning the principles of western justice in favor of mob lynchings, you're a pedo!
I didn't say "mob lynchings". Courtrooms are always used in these cases. There's a process already in existence for this. You can't blame the rest of society for having an enormously justifiable reaction to his sick existence because he chooses to do something that he knows is wrong but does anyway.
>>43938
>minor-attracted individual
>Because people appear to conflate "pedophile" and "child molester"
I would argue the two are synonymous. And that a pedophile is merely a child molester who hasn't been put into a position where he can do it just yet. The longer the pedophile goes without psychological help the chance that he'll selfishly destroy a child's life increases dramatically.
▶ No.43979
>>43978
>people who haven't molested a child are child molesters
>people who haven't shot up a school are school shooters
▶ No.43986>>43992 >>44029
>>43973
You're missing the point
>>43623
>consuming CP supports the market for pedo abusers
so the equivalent for /zoo/ is
>consuming zoophile content supports the market for zoophile abusers
But instead
>>43956
>consuming furry media supports the market for zoophile abusers
Which makes no fucking sense, and it isn't a matter of normalfag misunderstanding.
▶ No.43992>>43996
▶ No.43996
>>43992
I feel like no one is even trying to make sense today.
▶ No.44000
<animeposter is retarded and spouting bullshit
checks out 😹😹😹
▶ No.44029>>44034 >>44037
>>43986
>You're missing the point
He isn't, because plenty of dogfuckers (including myself) use furry as a more legal avenue of dogfucking. He's more or less spot on.
▶ No.44034>>44091 >>44102
>>43845
Yes, you can be charged for those photos, but the court will likely let you off with a "not guilty" conviction if your motive seems reasonable. In contrast, "I want to wank off to underage kids" is not a good reason.
A lot of those types are nonchalant about it anyway. When you do tell them that it's child abuse, they mock you and brag about not getting caught. I can't feel sorry for them.
>>44029
I'm glad that you aren't abusing your animal, but if you reached that point, then you have to stop whacking to porn. What's happening is that you're getting bored of regular kinks so you substitute with it with something more extreme. It's kind of how drug addicts graduate from marijuana to something like krokodil. They overdo it and they don't get the same level of dopamine from that activity anymore.
▶ No.44037>>44091
>>44029
Has all common sense and reading comprehension gone completely out the window today?
Let's pretend furry==porn and EVERYONE is a dogfucker using it as an alternative. All of the investment then goes into furry content, not zoophile content, and as such has no impact on the actual zoophile "industry" and doesn't support any animal abuse. If you give an anthro artist a watch you are not encouraging some dogfucker to videotape himself fucking the neighbor's collie.
▶ No.44091>>44112
>>44034
> What's happening is that you're getting bored of regular kinks so you substitute with it with something more extreme.
Excuse me? I wouldn't consider furry more extreme than zoophilia. Also I don't have a dog. I work too much to take care of one. but he would ravage me in the butt for hours ever day if I had one, no doubt about it
>>44037
>Has all common sense and reading comprehension gone completely out the window today?
Apparently, because you don't get it.
▶ No.44102>>44112 >>44179
>>44034
This is part of the issue. Why does "motive" even matter? It's nonsense. So it's totally okay to take naked pictures of children if you don't get off to it. It makes it completely clear that they don't give the tiniest fuck about the child; they only want to punish someone for daring to be a pervert. Merely being attracted to children is essentially illegal, even if you don't DO anything. In fact, if a child is molested, it's common tactic to interrogate them for hours upon hours to find out every detail of what happened, so as to be able to punish the molester all the more thoroughly. No matter that the poor kid ends up traumatized by this. No matter that it will psychologically scar them to be forced to tell all sorts of people where the bad man touched them. "For the chilluns!" has been and always will be an excuse --- a rallying cry with which they brainwash anyone listening.
▶ No.44105
▶ No.44112>>44181
>>43568 (OP)
>that fucking sure he was getting put away
I was going to say I always figured getting caught with drawn cheese pizza or any kind of fantasy shit like that should land you on some heavy probation at the absolute worst, but he sounds like he had straight up photos of actual children.
Then he manages to be even more of a faggot by going full an hero instead of just accepting prison.
>I will be taking my own life, ending my short run here in this world on my own terms.
Did he think he was getting the motherfucking chair over this or something?
How fucking stupid can you be?
>>44091
>spoiler
That level of degeneracy is way too much for me, anon.
As long as you don't hurt the poor animal by trying to trade places though, I can't really say it's wrong even if I think it's fucked up.
>>44102
>So it's totally okay to take naked pictures of children if you don't get off to it.
What, are they gonna put my mother away for possession of CP over a photo of a bath she was giving me and my brother when we were like three because she had given us soapy bubble hats and you can happen to see one of our junks over the rim of the tub?
▶ No.44179
>>44102
They're hard on molesters because humans fundamentally hate people who exploit the weak for being weak. It's a good mentality that makes us differ from animals.
▶ No.44181>>44240
>>44112
A child molester in prison will eventually get found out. They have a cover story going in but it slips sooner or later.
Criminals respect children and family. Its a sacred unspoken thing. That guy that stabbed a hobo? He has a kid. He's going to absolutely shank your kidneys if he finds a pedophile in his jail. Money can be replaced but knowing you could have stopped someone from raping a child? Good riddance
▶ No.44240
>>44181
He didn't rape any children, though. Just had some pictures of children that he never met and who probably haven't been children for decades.
▶ No.44468>>44616 >>44693
https://inkbunny.net/journalview.php?id=289871
I found this guy's commentary on the matter interesting.
▶ No.44616>>44665 >>44668 >>44702 >>45213
>>44468
The sheer idiotic hypocrisy involved in this sort of thing is just insane. When you start peeling back the layers of nonsense, you start to realize just how broken the American "justice" system is. The whole bit about "intent" mattering in cases is utterly and completely absurd.
For example, to back up a little from a subject that people cannot be objective about --- because anything about kids make them start frothing at the mouth — consider laws against sex with animals. It's actually perfectly legal and okay to masturbate your dog to orgasm, provided you're collecting his semen for breeding or whatever. But if you do it because you enjoy it, just for fun, that's illegal. That's abuse. You're HARMING THE DOG.
Okay, first of all, do you even think the dog knows the difference...? Then, all you're saying is that it's perfectly okay to abuse a dog so long as there is a purpose behind it. No, no of course not. That can't be it. The only way to reason your way out of that one is to admit that jacking off the dog doesn't really harm him. if so, WHY IS ILLEGAL TO DO IT FOR FUN?? There is no logical answer.
Bringing it back to child porn, you know there are federal agencies that have gigabytes of the stuff, right? The use it to create honeypots on the internet to try to trap pedos. I'm sure you've seen it many, many times if you are familiar with imageboards; it used to happen all the time on /b/ back in the day. Someone posts a new thread with no title, just a blurry, pixellated thumbnail image of a nude little girl with the name of some obscure (likely russian) website. Sometimes they'll spam a few dozen of these threads. If someone visits that website, their IP gets logged and the feds pay 'em a visit the next morning. V&.
Now, regardless of whether this kind of thing REALLY happens anymore, you wouldn't find a SINGLE person who thinks this is bad. Any means necessary should be used to take out pedos, right? Well, okay, but it's real child porn. It's pictures of real children. If you're going to scream and whine that Mr. Joe Blow who downloads some shit on the deepweb is harming a child by fapping to those pics, you can't deny that a bunch of feds spreading those pics across the internet also harms the child.
B-b-but, we have to catch the pedos! It serves a purpose! They have to be taken off the streets before they harm a child!
Right. Gotcha. We're right back to the thing with the dogs again: IT'S PERFECTLY OKAY TO HARM A CHILD SO LONG AS IT SERVES A PURPOSE. That's what you're saying? No...? Then the child isn't really being harmed by those pictures. You can't have it both ways. Either you're harming the child or you're not. This makes it clear that it's not about the children. It doesn't matter how many of them have to be harmed, so long as the evil disgusting pedophile is put to justice. It's exactly like Frollo resolving to burn down all of Paris to find one gypsy woman who wronged him.
▶ No.44665
>>44616
You're not harming the dog, you're committing a vice - a crime with no harm.
And stop trying to normalize degenerate behavior. Pedophilia is wrong, bestiality is wrong. If you don't like it, get the fuck out of whatever country you're in.
▶ No.44668>>44680 >>44681 >>44702 >>44703 >>45398
>>44616
I caught myself wondering, the other day, why planning out a murder makes it worse. Why that gets you life imprisonment or the death penalty when just killing someone in the heat of the moment gets you like 10-20 years. When I was younger, I just accepted it; murder in the first degree nets a higher sentence --- that's just the way it IS. But have you ever asked yourself why, logically, that should be?
The victim doesn't care; they're dead either way. The victim's family don't care; they've lost a loved one either way. The state doesn't care; they've lost a taxpayer either way. Intent of the murderer doesn't change the simple fact of what occurred. So it must be that other "reason" for prison time: because the person who planned the murder is a greater danger to society than the person who didn't.
But are they really...? Take a second to think about it. Someone who goes to great pains and lengths to plan and carefully carry out a murder of one person obviously had it out pretty bad for that person. They really wanted that one, particular person dead, really badly. Nobody else, apparently (otherwise they would have carefully and specifically killed others). But the person who killed in the "heat of passion", or whatever? They killed ON A WHIM. They murdered someone for NO GOOD REASON AT ALL! Holy shit. When you think about it that way, you wonder when this loose cannon gets pissed off again, is he going to kill someone else again?? Are the lives of those around him tied only to whether or not this menace loses his temper? He's obviously a much greater threat to society; he should be locked up for LONGER.
But that's not what we do. No, not at all. Why is that? How can we let someone who murders on a whim face a much lesser punishment than someone who murders after intense focused planning? The reason is because the guy who lost his temper and stuck a knife in his wife's back just made a mistake; a really, REALLY bad mistake, sure, but he's just a human who screwed up badly. He got angry: a perfectly natural and normal human thing to do. The first-degree murderer, though? He PLANNED it. What a sick and twisted thing to do! Obviously only a MONSTER does such things, thinks in such a way. He must be fucked in the head, mentally deranged, and as a matter of fact: COMPLETELY EVIL. So he'll have to be put to death. Plain and simple.
Once you've realized this, you'll come to the terrifying conclusion that any type of law or criminal proceeding that includes "intent" is nothing more than thoughtcrime. It's punishing people who are LESS of a threat to society, for the same crime, more just because they are considered "evil" or "bad" or "wrong".
▶ No.44680
>>44668
Damn, that's some heavy shit, Anon.
▶ No.44681>>44699
>>44668
Planning a murder is more malicious than getting mad in the heat of the moment.
Polite sage because you're a fucking retard
▶ No.44693
>>44468
>Journal is blocked by guests
▶ No.44699
>>44681
>Planning a murder is more malicious
>Such malice, much evil, so bad guy
Thanks for reiterating the last sentence of my argument, but slightly rewording it. This might help some other people understand. You're so helpful.
▶ No.44702>>44715 >>44800 >>45101
>>44616
>It's actually perfectly legal and okay to masturbate your dog to orgasm, provided you're collecting his semen for breeding or whatever
>But if you do it because you enjoy it, just for fun, that's illegal. That's abuse. You're HARMING THE DOG.
Because it's a different context. In a similar way as saying "well if you stab someone who attacks you. That's self defense. But if you stab someone just because you feel pleasure from doing so. That's illegal. That's abuse." Context does matter.
>Okay, first of all, do you even think the dog knows the difference...?
It doesn't matter if the dog does or does not know the difference. You can make a similar case for raping a retard that's a legal adult. "Lol does the retard know I'm fucking him/her? Checkmate" These arguments fall apart when you try and make it saying "only something that directly harms a sentient being should be illegal". By this definition repeatedly physically torturing your dog isn't going to matter because it's too stupid to know what's happening to it. And "surgeons cut open dogs all the time and that's legal". Context matters.
>WHY IS ILLEGAL TO DO IT FOR FUN
The dog can't consent. You are using the dog as a sexual plaything. You are abusing the animal and that's against the law.
>you wouldn't find a SINGLE person who thinks this is bad
>A person using an illegal substance to catch people who would look for this illegal substance
>A bad thing
I see it as the same way as a police officer setting up a sting of cocaine so he can catch people who are purchasing it.
>IT'S PERFECTLY OKAY TO HARM A CHILD SO LONG AS IT SERVES A PURPOSE
The government agencies aren't using pedophilia that they themselves create. They're using confiscated paraphernalia in sting operations to catch other criminals. Context matters
>Either you're harming the child or you're not
The only reason they have those pictures in the first place is because they confiscated them from somewhere. The cat's already out of the bag.
>It doesn't matter how many of them have to be harmed, so long as the evil disgusting pedophile is put to justice
Identifying the pedophile is of the up most importance. That way people can prevent him from getting close to children. Again context matters.
>>44668
>why planning out a murder makes it worse. Why that gets you life imprisonment or the death penalty when just killing someone in the heat of the moment gets you like 10-20 years
Because a person who plans out a murder is more likely to commit another one if they get away with it, and they're less likely to feel remorse for it. In the instance of a crime being committed, whether or not the person planned the murder out or just in the heat of the moment killed someone is a huge distinction to make.
>The victim's family don't care; they've lost a loved one either way
I don't think you've actually seen a victim's family and their opinion on a murderer. Overwhelmingly they see the murder as being worse if the crime was premeditated.
>They really wanted that one, particular person dead, really badly. Nobody else, apparently
If you watch crime documentaries you'll notice there's a trend where a person who is suspected of committing a murder because of lack of evidence eventually is emboldened and kills again because they know they can get away with it.
>you wonder when this loose cannon gets pissed off again, is he going to kill someone else again
He's going to prison if he's found guilty.
>He's obviously a much greater threat to society; he should be locked up for LONGER
This is an extremely un-nuanced position and I'll explain why. Because you'll immediately see the problems with it.
Person A kills Person B because his wife cheated on him with Person B. And he did it in the heat of the moment.
This person is unlikely to commit another murder in the future after being found guilty of it. Because this wasn't a regular behavior, and was something he did in reaction to something very specific that occurred in his life. Because he was found guilty or murder it's unlikely he will commit another murder in the future due to the very specific nature of his crime and how long he will have spent in prison for it.
This also gets into things like, did Person A kill Person B accidentally? Was it less black and white if Person A actually killed Person B? Is the evidence actually just witness testimony and there's no forensic evidence. Did Person A actually have a motive or not? A lot of these questions immediately muddle the waters of whether or not someone should go to jail longer or not. But regardless they're still going for a really long time.
▶ No.44703
>>44668
>Obviously only a MONSTER does such things, thinks in such a way. He must be fucked in the head, mentally deranged, and as a matter of fact
Yes correct. A person who is sociopathic is significantly more likely to be of the opinion he is entitled to murder. This makes him a greater risk to society.
>So he'll have to be put to death
Now you're making a vastly different argument for whether or not the death penalty should be allowed. This is a completely different argument entirely as not every country (or state for that matter) practices the death penalty. And, you can still be sent to death for murder regardless of context depending on how heinous it is. (and if there are additional charges)
>you'll come to the terrifying conclusion that any type of law or criminal proceeding that includes "intent" is nothing more than thoughtcrime.
Your concept of "thought crime" isn't accurate. Thought crime is the concept that a person's thoughts alone, should be persecuted under the law.
If a person is planning out a murder, that alone is against the law. And rightfully so. I don't think you'd be happy if the police just went "eh whatever" if you had evidence that your neighbor was planning to murder you and had detailed plans of how he was going to do it. The planning stage of the operation, is an action. Not a thought. You are initiating plans to do something that is illegal and that is the crime.
>It's punishing people who are LESS of a threat to society
Both murderers are a threat to society. It's more so the severity of the punishment that is called into question. They're still getting put away.
>more just because they are considered "evil" or "bad" or "wrong".
No. The punishment is considered worse based on context. IE: If the criminal planned it out because that indicates he feels no remorse for what he did and feels justified in the act. Meaning he would murder again in the future.
▶ No.44715>>44858
>>44702
Jesus fuck, man. This is going to turn into a greentext war when you start shit like this.
>Context does matter
There is no context. You're jacking off the dog. What's in your mind or what you're doing with the semen afterwards doesn't change the action. If the dog can't consent to being jacked off for fun, it can't consent to being jacked off for profit. You're still abusing the dog in that case. Either it's abuse or it's not. Your analogies are complete nonsense. Self-defense in a knife fight has nothing to do with jacking off a dog.
>I see it as the same way as a police officer setting up a sting of cocaine so he can catch people who are purchasing it
Possession of cocaine isn't explicitly said to harm people merely by your having it. It's also impossible to download drugs for free on the internet, so you're always contributing to the "industry" by purchasing it. That's why it's illegal; because the drug industry kills and enslaves people in poor countries. A guy downloading CP for free doesn't contribute to the industry because there is no exchange of money.
>The government agencies aren't using pedophilia that they themselves create
Neither is the guy who downloaded it.
>The cat's already out of the bag.
So it would be completely okay for them to publish those nudie pics of that innocent child all over the internet for his schoolmates and family to see. You got me.
>Because a person who plans out a murder is ... less likely to feel remorse for it
Thoughtcrime.
>Overwhelmingly they see the murder as being worse if the crime was premeditated.
We've already established the common people as being idiots incapable of objectivity. That's why they don't get to make the laws.
>a person who is suspected of committing a murder because of lack of evidence eventually is emboldened and kills again because they know they can get away with it
This can apply to both murderers; it's irrelevant.
>This person is unlikely to commit another murder in the future after being found guilty of it
That's a huge assumption you're just pulling out of your ass. Someone with anger issues so bad they killed someone just because they got a little teed off isn't going to just stop having those serious issues because he gets a slap-on-the-wrist prison term.
>A person who is sociopathic is significantly more likely to be of the opinion he is entitled to murder
Another huge assumption from out of your ass, as well as applying it to Murderer A but not Murderer B. If you ask me, it takes someone supremely fucked up to commit a murder in any circumstance. There are no "levels" to taking a life without justification like protecting your own life or that of a family member.
>Thought crime is the concept that a person's thoughts alone, should be persecuted under the law.
If it's changing the scope of the sentence based on the person's thoughts, alone, that still qualifies. Like saying that you get a harsher sentence just because you like the color red rather than blue. Just because you can conjure up a bullshit justification for how liking the color red makes you a worse person, doesn't change that it's bullshit.
> If the criminal planned it out because that indicates he feels no remorse for what he did and feels justified in the act. Meaning he would murder again in the future
More assumptions out of your ass.
▶ No.44800>>44803 >>44858
>>44702
Holy shit dude your cognitive dissonance is astounding
▶ No.44803
>>44800
>Context doesn't matter only feelings
▶ No.44858>>44878 >>44919
>>44715
>Context does matter
>There is no context. You're jacking off the dog. What's in your mind or what you're doing with the semen afterwards doesn't change the action
It changes the context of the action. "Why" you're doing something does matter. It's why I used the analogy for self defense.
>it can't consent to being jacked off for profit.
Here's the thing. Depending on where you live to conduct animal husbandry you need a license to do it.
If you have a problem with licensed professionals doing something then you should also have a problem with surgeons cutting people open or police officers shooting criminals. Again context matters. This is like saying "well the guy in a coma can't consent to being operated on. And you can't cut someone open without their consent. Therefore let them die".
>You're still abusing the dog in that case
Context matters. You're not doing for the purposes of getting sexual gratification
>Possession of cocaine isn't explicitly said to harm people merely by your having it
No but possession of cocaine is illegal. Hence the analogy
>A guy downloading CP for free doesn't contribute to the industry because there is no exchange of money.
Even still a person who is downloading CP is 200% more likely to rape a child. Discovering who the pedophiles are is only possible if they do the act, admit to it or download CP. CP isn't protected speech.
>publish those nudie pics of that innocent child all over the internet for his schoolmates and family to see. You got me.
They typically get the consent of the individuals involved.
>>Because a person who plans out a murder is ... less likely to feel remorse for it
>Thoughtcrime.
Planning out a murder isn't the same as thinking about doing it. Planning out something has more evidence of it's occurrence.
They also don't prosecute someone if he's planning out a murder in a fictional story. They look at the evidence.
>idiots incapable of objectivity
>Family doesn't like it that the murderer was a sociopath who has no remorse over killing
>idiots
>This can apply to both murderers; it's irrelevant.
Yes but a crime of passion is more likely to feel remorse for it. The person who plans out the murder isn't.
>that's a huge assumption you're just pulling out of your ass
It isn't. If a person does not get away with the murder, they're significantly less likely to commit another one compared to someone who planned it out.
>Someone with anger issues so bad they killed someone just because they got a little teed off isn't going to just stop having those serious issues because he gets a slap-on-the-wrist prison term.
>10-15-20 year prison term is a slap on the wrist
That person's life is over. Their family will not even recognize them when they get out.
Yes they did a bad thing but they can become productive members of society after committing a mistake earlier in life. A person who plans a murder out cannot.
>it takes someone supremely fucked up to commit a murder in any circumstance
It's usually more sociopolitical. Like a murder commonly occurs in robbery. Like a guy is robbing a store and doesn't intend to kill anyone but then someone grabs him from behind and he shoots them. There are also non-sociopolitical causes like when husbands overwhelmingly murder their wives.
>There are no "levels" to taking a life without justification like protecting your own life or that of a family member.
I'm not saying there are levels. I'm saying there are degrees of punishment for a crime
>f it's changing the scope of the sentence based on the person's thoughts, alone, that still qualifies
That's not thoughts. When a person plans out a murder, they take action.
Bare in mind the act of planning a murder isn't like "I'ma just go and kill this guy". What classifies as "planning a murder" involves doing things like purchasing a gun just to do it, digging a hole somewhere to get rid of the body, wearing gloves to get rid of fingerprints. That sort of thing. It's a very different context between "this guy planned out killing his neighbor for months" compared to "this guy shot him because he evicted him". There has to be physical evidence of premeditation to prove it.
>More assumptions out of your ass.
When a person soberly plans out a murder they will almost always feel emboldened if they aren't caught and do it again. They don't feel remorse for it.
>>44800
>Holy shit dude your cognitive dissonance is astounding
Nice argument
▶ No.44878
>>44858
>This is like saying "well the guy in a coma can't consent to being operated on. And you can't cut someone open without their consent. Therefore let them die".
This and your thing with "context" are the only points I really feel a major need to disagree on.
In one case, the stakes are another's life. In the other, its money. You can't compare assumed consent in order to save someone's life, to blatantly disregarded consent for monetary gain.
And with licenses, another muddy point. With the medical industry, licenses exist to protect patients. With police, its to grant permissions to those deemed responsible/knowledgeable enough not to abuse them. An animal husbandry license doesn't protect animals, if the main issue is consent; a licensed individual isn't any more capable of gauging or acquiring consent than an unlicensed individual. And as far as responsibility goes, the only real abuse of the animal is the violation of its consent, which again, is there whether there's a license or not.
A patient can still refuse consent to a licensed practitioners. Animals supposedly cannot. There lies the problem with your comparison.
As for context, the reasons you give describe different situations. In the case of animal husbandry, the animal is the same whether its a licensed individual or otherwise performing the action. What changes, the context in this situation, is who is performing the action. The action and the individual are the same, but you're saying that because the person performing the action has a license/isn't doing it for self-gratification it's okay. In the case of self-defense, what's different is the person being acted on: whether or not they are trying to harm you.
But let's say the license is so important to consent, considering your mention of licenses was in responsse to a quote about consent. Answer this then. If a licensed individual decides, one day, he really has the hots for this horse and does what he does for sexual graitifcation, but stays completely within the limits of what his license allows him to do, is it now wrong because of his motive? Or does his license still make it "okay?"
▶ No.44919
>>44858
>"Why" you're doing something does matter
No it doesn't. We've established that it doesn't. There is no possible argument for why jacking off a dog is not harming a dog in one circumstance but harming it in another one. Without that, all you're saying is another version of circular reasoning "It's illegal to jack off a dog for fun because it just is."
>Depending on where you live to conduct animal husbandry you need a license to do it.
So it's totally okay to abuse animals (or children!) if you have the right license. The hole off logical fallacies digs itself ever deeper.
>a person who is downloading CP is 200% more likely to rape a child.
More bullshit pulled out of your ass, with added farcical statistical measures this time.
>They typically get the consent of the individuals involved
The CP is legally considered "eternally a child" and so can never be made legal. Child porn is illegal no matter what, if owned by an ordinary citizen, even if the child is now an adult, even if the adult that was a child says "it's okay". Most of that old CP from the 70's and 80's was out of the USSR or various Eastern European countries, and it's totally impossible to even determine who those children are. Also, do you REALLY think the FBI is going to give a shit? They do whatever they want to do because nobody will stop them.
>All this nonsense about a person who plans a murder being more likely to commit another one, not having remorse, not being able to be a productive member of society, and other bullshit nonsense with no logical basis other then "because they're a bad person".
Forget it. You're incapable of seeing this logically. You're incapable of anything but circular reasoning "it is because it is" arguments. I'm done with you.
▶ No.44933>>44938 >>44947
How fast do you think I'll get banned? 600 watchers
▶ No.44938
>>44933
I'm surprised that you're still not banned.
▶ No.44944>>44970
Some guy nobody cares about dies for a crime nobody cares about and OP gets hard on all the side information around it.
Why the hell does this thread exist?
And why is OP allowed to live on? Karma should hit him in the face. With a truck.
▶ No.44945
Filthy coward. Should've faced the nonce-bashing he'd have gotten in jail.
▶ No.44947>>44955
>>44933
I don't know but I'm certain you'll be banned here for political/derail
▶ No.44955
>>44947
That's already happened and I've greatly reduced the number of political posts I've made.
▶ No.44970>>45066 >>45235
>>44944
>Why the hell does this thread exist?
For discussion. It's furry-related because lots of people and even some entire countries can't discern between fantasy and reality. If they ban cub porn because they equate it with child porn, they might next ban all furry because they equate it with bestiality, and you won't be able to fucking stop it. It's always somebody else's problem until YOUR fetish is the one on the chopping block.
▶ No.45066>>45083
>>44970
Well since his gallery is full of stories instead of art, I'd suspect he did something more than just you know... write cub porn.
I don't care enough to read this thread.
But he clearly did something that got the feds attention and I highly doubt that the shit he was worried to be found was just his half-assed cub-porn.
So I don't know why this thread exists.
It's like saying: "Some furry shot some idiot on the streets, now they are after him and there is probably cub-porn on his PC, and THAT'S the reason he commited suicide and gets in trouble." The whole concept of this thread is completely retarded and it's probably not yet deleted just to respect the death of that guy or some crap.
▶ No.45083
>>45066
Just because the OP is about one specific thing, doesn't mean we can't discuss things sorta related to it. The crux of the issue is the slippery-slope of thoughtcrime and criminalizing pixels. As I said, the moment you brush aside the problem because it doesn't involve you is the moment you've fucked yourself.
You know, during the Civil Rights marches, there were white people in there, too. Some of them were protecting friends, sure, but that's not why most of them were there. Most were thinking, "If the government can so easily take away THEIR rights, they can do the same to ME."
▶ No.45101
>>44702
> In a similar way as saying "well if you stab someone who attacks you. That's self defense. But if you stab someone just because you feel pleasure from doing so. That's illegal. That's abuse."
Justifiable homicide and murder vs jacking off a dog into a condom and jacking off a dog for pleasure
▶ No.45213>>45223
>>44616
>that Mr. Joe Blow who downloads some shit on the deepweb is harming a child by fapping to those pics
Not directly, but he's creating demand for people that will directly manipulate children into making more porn to distribute.
It's the same deal with fur trades.
Increasing the demand for illegally obtained furs just increases people's willingness to break laws in order to cash in.
It all depends on a person's situation, capability, and whether or not the temptation is strong enough to make them decide the risk of being caught is worth it.
▶ No.45223>>45227
>>45213
What part of "no money is exchanged because it's a free download" did you not understand?
▶ No.45227>>45313
>>45223
Just because it's free doesn't mean there's no demand for it.
See: FA
▶ No.45231
>this thread
>these moralfags
>supply and demand
my sides
▶ No.45235>>45241
>>44970
>not downloading a massive collection of only the highest quality furry porn in case CIA niggers shut the websites down
Lmaoing@ you're life too be honest family.
▶ No.45241>>45292
>>45235
>416 b file
You do know a file that small is meaningless, because most systems have a default paging size of 4 kb, meaning it'll take out a chunk that large, despite the small filesize?
▶ No.45313>>45327
>>45227
FA wouldn't exist if there wasn't large amounts of money being exchanged.
▶ No.45327>>45462
>>45313
So FA is a money laundering scheme?
It has to be. Popular furs and/or people with money can buy immunity to being banned and criticism. Dragoneer SOLD HALF THE FUCKING WEBSITE HE DIDNT OWN to IMVU, which they themselves are a scummy business practice to begin with.
▶ No.45398>>45440
>>44668
I like you. Can I reach you on IM or Inkbunny or something?
▶ No.45440
>>45398
>I like you. Can I reach you on IM or Inkbunny or something?
>Wanting a pedo apologist for a friend
▶ No.45462
>>45327
I feel as if we've gotten about four levels removed from the actual topic at hand...
▶ No.45549
>>43598
You know when I said to never cross the streams?
Cross them, now.
▶ No.45550>>45562
>>43699
>Liking videogames is cringey
As opposed to what? Wage-slaving for an ungrateful plutocracy and watching cars take left turns for hours on end?
Spending all your money on stupid ass shit that'll be worthless in a couple years because it makes you 'look successful'?
And even if you do manage to become Elon Musk...
Then what? You're an optimist surrounded by self-destructive morons who will probably have WWIII in your lifetime while you're trying to double the population ceiling via colonizing the solar system...
There is no spoon motherfucker. This is all fake. We're all already DEAD.
Time just needs to catch up to that FACT.
▶ No.45562>>45783 >>45861
>>45550
all you video game faggots always use the fallacy of false dilemma. look it up. stop pretending your only options are to be a manbaby playing nintendo games that are so easy that there's zero brain activity when you're playing them, or to be a suited businessman.
there are literally infinite things you could be doing other than playing shitty fucking braindead games. alright you dumb dumb?
how about this, next time you want to start up your shitty video games, stare at the wall instead. i guarantee you it will be more productive. just stare at the wall and have a fucking thought. use your brain instead of turning it off.
▶ No.45569>>45648
>So many moralfags getting assbalsted
>tfw laws will never change and punish someone who has CP or drawn CP far worse than a real pedophile
Stay classy moralfags.
▶ No.45648>>45649
>>45569
>tfw laws will never change and punish someone who has CP or drawn CP far worse than a real pedophile
What are you talking about? Someone who has CP can and will get life imprisonment if they have enough of it because they add up a certain amount of sentence for every picture. An actual molester will usually get out in less than ten years, provided it wasn't a "tied up the kid and raped him to death" sort of thing.
▶ No.45649>>45724
>>45648
How long is one picture anyways? Not that it will ever be an issue because I'm not a dirty pedo, but I'm curious. Does it also vary based on image lewdness?
>when a prosecuting attorney argues that a video is a collection of images and each frame counts against you
▶ No.45668
▶ No.45724
>>45649
>Does it also vary based on image lewdness?
That would make sense. I've heard of images described as "hardcore pornography" so I'm sure casual nudes are treated differently than pictures of kids actually having sex, though no less illegal. It often also comes down to how the judge in question feels about the issue --- whether he wants to really throw the book at the defendant. Because possession of CP is a crime against the state, not another citizen, you don't even get a trial by jury or anything like that. It's just you and the judge and whatever the fuck sentence he wants to give you. There are no rules or guidelines, here. If he feels like you deserve life imprisonment for one picture, there probably isn't anything you can do about it. Nobody but a public defender will help you attempt to prove it was "cruel and unusual punishment", and they're all completely useless. The chance it will go the other way is zero, because no judge wants to come out of a proceeding looking like "the judge who is soft on pedophiles"; most of them will likely overcompensate the sentence to avoid this.
▶ No.45783>>45788
>>45562
You need better b8.
For starters, that hook has rust on it.
▶ No.45788
>>45783
which part of what i said is wrong? let's hear it
▶ No.45861
>>45562
Aren't you like a die hard fan of some 3DS game with some egyptian cat named Marco Meko or something like that oh wait nope not anymore you're currently going full Chris-Chan on some korean tv baby show about some retarded blue beast. You have no ground of any kind to tell people what they shouldn't like or do Salos.
Also, using "muh fallacies"? You always said this was an informal setting. Geez you can never stick to one thing other than being absolutely laughable.
▶ No.46642
>>43568 (OP)
Where does it say he had cp in the first place?
This looks you just a furry's suicide to defend your child furry porn, from what i'm reading a bit here in thread.
>>43623
>CP (even consuming it) creates a market for abusers etc etc,
this
>>43622
>pixels on a screen
Yes, and those pixels is still a child being fucking and raped, like if it was a porn of children.