You won't believe these 8 OUTRAGEOUS beliefs of the PIC!!!

Societal problems, economics, etc.

Actually I think in some areas or maybe even the entire country the government is required to tell them every time they arrest someone with their images, I've heard that they are sent letters, and they oftentimes actually are just perpetually upset by receiving such notifications and exclaim that they wish they would stop so they can stop thinking about it, but they blame the people looking at their images for it, instead of blaming the government for harassing them by sending them such letters that they don't even want.

If we unpackage the above quotation we have:

(1) . . . supplying the material to meet this demand results in the further abuse of children Pictures, films and videos function as a permanent record of the original sexual abuse.

)) Okay. An obvious point.


It's not an obvious point it's unsupported logic, every study has shown an inverse correlation between rates of CP viewing and child sex abuse, and although there are completely unsupported allegations of a multi billion dollar CP industry, in reality commercially produced CP is virtually unheard of, paying for CP is virtually unheard of, and the bulk of commercial CP production was actually softcore, artistic, and done legally in various countries that had different sex laws than the USA, with consenting JBs who did it professionally and had also support of their parents. The demand leads to supply argument is completely unsupported and not at all deserving of the connotation of obvious, it is better characterized as misleadingly intuitive.

(2) Consequently, memories of the trauma and abuse are maintained as long as the record exists.

)) This is a bizarre statement which makes no sense to me. The only way it makes sense is if we insert the following:

Consequently, memories of the trauma and abuse are maintained as long as the alleged victim "believes" or "knows" that the record exists.

The above insertion of text is the only way in which we can make this statement consistent with the naturalistic view expressed in statement 1 and statement 3 (see below).


These people constantly say utterly bizarre things due to the fact that they are religiously delusional, in the same fashion as anti-vaxxers, scientologists, etcetera.

(3) Victims filmed and photographed many years ago will nevertheless be aware throughout their lifetimes that their childhood victimization continues to be exploited perversely."

)) Okay. An obvious point which I had addressed in my previous reply.


And a point that is orthogonal to people looking at the images/videos.

In closing all I can say is that you obtain a second opinion on it (in case these researchers truly believe in the supernatural of voodoo and I am blissfully unaware of it). You could show your quotations to your family and friends in real life and ask how they would interpret them. This is your best bet to obtain another opinion on this matter rather than our just going back-and-forth on this (^_^)


lol I would not talk about this to such an extent IRL with any person, however I've no doubt that my father would also consider them religiously delusional, he does certainly know that some of their arguments are nonsensical, however he doesn't know the extent of their delusion, and may not be aware they are actually essentially a religion, seeing as he doesn't particularly follow them or know about the history of the issue, short of the fact that it was a violation of the constitution to criminalize it, and that their supply and demand arguments separate from a financial market are specious, like that is all I've heard him say in relation to CP and I don't really discuss it IRL though I've told him I saw JB porn once.

Rotting Penis wrote:If MRZ uses the word "orthogonal" one more time I will go ER


Orthogonal is an important word with many situations in which it should be utilized.

mrz wrote:
Rotting Penis wrote:If MRZ uses the word "orthogonal" one more time I will go ER


Orthogonal is an important word with many situations in which it should be utilized.

No it's not, there are much better specific words to cover its meanings:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/orthogonal

1. Relating to or composed of right angles.

That's called PERPENDICULAR

3. Very different or unrelated; sharply divergent:

How about IRRELEVANT or UNRELATED? Both of which are better because more specific by the way.


The only use where that word is not redundant is this one:
2. Mathematics
a. Of or relating to a matrix whose transpose equals its inverse.
b. Of or relating to a linear transformation that preserves the length of vectors.


In all other cases this word is redundant and useless, unless of course you want to pretend to be "different" by using obscure lingo.

Rotting Penis wrote:
mrz wrote:
Orthogonal is an important word with many situations in which it should be utilized.

No it's not, there are much better specific words to cover its meanings:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/orthogonal

1. Relating to or composed of right angles.

That's called PERPENDICULAR

3. Very different or unrelated; sharply divergent:

How about IRRELEVANT or UNRELATED? Both of which are better because more specific by the way.


The only use where that word is not redundant is this one:
2. Mathematics
a. Of or relating to a matrix whose transpose equals its inverse.
b. Of or relating to a linear transformation that preserves the length of vectors.


In all other cases this word is redundant and useless, unless of course you want to pretend to be "different" by using obscure lingo.


Orthogonal is commonly used in academic literature to denote a tangential topic of discussion that is not covered in the paper.
Last edited by mrz on Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

mrz wrote:Orthogonal is commonly used in academic papers to denote a tangential subject that is not covered in the paper.

this doesn't even make sense you idiot :lol:

Rotting Penis wrote:
mrz wrote:Orthogonal is commonly used in academic papers to denote a tangential subject that is not covered in the paper.

this doesn't even make sense you idiot :lol:


Sure it does, for example a paper on abstract chemical synthesis may say that some safety protocol should be followed during the reaction but that the specific protocol is orthogonal to the paper. That is just an example I made up and I don't know chemistry well enough to know if it is accurate or not. In cryptography a paper on a PRNG may mention a hash function primitive in it but then say hash function internals are orthogonal to the paper. Another way of saying this is outside of the scope of, like the paper covers a specific topic and it has many topics that are related to it and it mentions those topics simultaneously with saying that it is not covering them any further, like it's in the broader understanding but it is not related to what is written.

If it's tangential, why use the word orhogonal and if it's orthogonal why use the word tangential?

Or it's just pseudo-scientific babble that makes the paper sound more pretentious

"outside of the scope of" is perfectly fucking fine

go kill yourself

From 1989 to the present, there has been a steady population increase. Statistical analysis using Pearson's r for the relation between the number of males aged 15-64 in the population and cases of child sex abuse found a negative correlation of -.78 (p=.001).


Seems like an inverse correlation to me

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers ... lation.asp

In the field of statistics, positive correlation describes the relationship between two variables which change together, while an inverse correlation describes the relationship between two variables which change in opposing directions. Inverse correlation is sometimes described as negative correlation, which describes the same type of relationship between variables.


Rotting Penis wrote:If it's tangential, why use the word orhogonal and if it's orthogonal why use the word tangential?

Or it's just pseudo-scientific babble that makes the paper sound more pretentious

"outside of the scope of" is perfectly fucking fine

go kill yourself


I mostly use it to sound pretentious but it's also a fun and useful word. It's tangentially related in being part of the overall system, but it is orthogonal in that it is not covered in the paper due to being outside of the scope of it.

Pictures, films and videos function as a permanent record of the original sexual abuse.


This is also empty rhetoric, it is exactly saying that they should be illegal because they exist, pictures, films, and videos are a record of what originally happened, like that sentence cannot be used as an argument to criminalize some pictures and videos, because it is making only the obvious statement that pictures are pictures.

That's like saying guns should be illegal because they serve the function of firing bullets, like that is intrinsic to what they are so it is not an argument for why they should be illegal unless you already accepted that they should be illegal to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question" is committed when someone attempts to prove a proposition based on a premise that itself requires proof.[7]

When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in a single step, it is sometimes called a hysteron proteron,[8][9] as in the statement[10]

"Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality."[11]

Such fallacies may not be immediately obvious—obscured by synonyms or synonymous phrases. One way to beg the question is to make a statement first in concrete terms, then in abstract ones, or vice versa.[11] Another is to "bring forth a proposition expressed in words of Saxon origin, and give as a reason for it the very same proposition stated in words of Norman origin",[12] as in this example:

"To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments."[13]

When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in more than one step, some authors consider it circulus in probando or reasoning in a circle.[8][14]

Do you see though how it doesn't matter if they are speaking figuratively or literally?

If they literally believe that "looking at CP causes it to be like the person was raped all over again (and should for this reason be illegal to view)", then they have a coherent line of reasoning, in that the assertion, when assumed to be true, logically leads to the conclusion, if we presuppose that rape itself should be illegal. However, the issue is that the literal interpretation of this assertion, is actually a mystical and religious belief, with no connection to reality, despite the complete phrase being coherent.

If they are using it as a figure of speech for "the person depicted feels raped all over again every time she imagines someone looking at the CP (and CP should for this reason be illegal to view)", then although they are not asserting a mystical religious belief reminiscent of voodoo, the conclusion they arrive to does not follow from their original assertion, it is a non-sequitur, an incoherent thought. This is because the person depicted will continue to feel that way every time she thinks about it, separate from anyone looking at the CP. People looking at CP depicting her will not affect her, they are not making her think about them looking at it when they look at it, and even if nobody looks at it she will think of people looking at it.


If they literally believe that "consequently, memories of the trauma and abuse are maintained as long as the record exists (and CP should be illegal to view for this reason)", then they have a coherent line of reasoning, insofar as we should not force a bad memory to be maintained by a person. However, the literal interpretation of this assertion is a magical religious belief, with no connection to reality. The act of looking at the image causes no effect on the person depicted, it does not maintain their memory of what happened when someone else looks at the image.

If they are using it as a figure of speech for "the actual photograph itself is a memory of the trauma, and/or the memory formed in the mind of a person who views it, so the memory will exist in the mind of some, or as a binary sequence, so long as people view it and/or it exists (and therefore it should be illegal to view CP)", then they are not engaging in a religious mystical belief, however they are engaging in the logical fallacy of begging the question. They are not giving an actual argument as to why it should be illegal whatsoever, rather they are with much poetic obfuscation saying it should be illegal by its name because it is its definition, this is essentially a perfect example of an ipsedixitism;

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ipsedixitism

a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)



When they say "films and videos function as a permanent record of the original sexual abuse, (and CP should for this reason be illegal)" they are going straight to begging the question, they didn't dually encode it with one coherent but religious interpretation, and another incoherent secular interpretation, but rather just gave the incoherent secular argument, engaging in a logical fallacy, begging the question, stating that CP by one name should be illegal because it is the definition of itself.

This is because the person depicted will continue to feel that way every time she thinks about it,

Another sly attempt on manipulation by the relentless Mr Z

Obviously they won't feel that bad if they believe watching their pics is illegal and punished by 20000000 years of hard labour and as such will never see the light of mainstream but be restricted to a few fat losers on the internet as opposed to be worried whether their friends, family, teacher saw them and every time somebody smiles at them they think "why are they smiling? did they see? do they know?"

MrZ is such a pretentious cunt carefully omitting and misinterpreting various parts of the argument and doing it with relentless persistence, like he will never stop until his last breath.

Rotting Penis wrote:
This is because the person depicted will continue to feel that way every time she thinks about it,

Another sly attempt on manipulation by the relentless Mr Z

Obviously they won't feel that bad if they believe watching their pics is illegal and punished by 20000000 years of hard labour and as such will never see the light of mainstream but be restricted to a few fat losers on the internet as opposed to be worried whether their friends, family, teacher saw them and every time somebody smiles at them they think "why are they smiling? did they see? do they know?"

MrZ is such a pretentious cunt carefully omitting and misinterpreting various parts of the argument and doing it with relentless persistence, like he will never stop until his last breath.


Even with it illegal they have no way of knowing if their friends or family saw it. Literally nothing is accomplished. So we have these people using extremely metaphorical language, that makes sense if it is literally interpreted, despite being a religious delusion if it is meant literally, but that is completely incoherent if it is actually meant to be figuratively interpreted.

This is the summarization of essentially every single argument of the anti-CP crusaders, none of them actually stand up to critical thought, like their entire belief system is inseparable from a religious belief system, from their belief in the multi-billion dollar CP industry that doesn't actually exist, to their either religiously delusional or incoherent arguments about revictimization, their research papers are methodologically flawed with egregious selection biases amongst other problems, and their rhetoric is unsupported by anything other than itself, and is contradicted by actual science published in peer reviewed journals.

There is no legitimate reason for it to be illegal to look at any media. The people who say otherwise are as mentally compromised as any religious sect, arguing with them is like arguing with creationists, they have absolutely nothing but false information, and they are beyond a doubt either religiously delusional or simply completely incoherent.

Even with it illegal they have no way of knowing if their friends or family saw it.

Another manipulation.

Obviously they CAN see it if it's legal and if it's illegal.

BUT

if it's illegal and
google removed it from search results
bing removed it from search results
all porn websites removed it under threat of HEAVY penalties

their parents don't use Tor
their friends don't watch child pornography

if anybody publicly says they watched it, they can go to prison

and what is left is a bunch of sick people on deep web,

the chances of somebody she knows seeing her are 1000's times smaller than if it was legal


MRZ is manipulating again pretending he doesn't understand scale and probability.


Why don't you play lottery MRZ, after all the chances of winning 5 million USD are equal to losing 5 bucks - it's sure profit!

Rotting Penis wrote:
Even with it illegal they have no way of knowing if their friends or family saw it.

Another manipulation.

Obviously they CAN see it if it's legal and if it's illegal.

BUT

if it's illegal and
google removed it from search results
bing removed it from search results
all porn websites removed it under threat of HEAVY penalties

their parents don't use Tor
their friends don't watch child pornography

if anybody publicly says they watched it, they can go to prison

and what is left is a bunch of sick people on deep web,

the chances of somebody she knows seeing her are 1000's times smaller than if it was legal


MRZ is manipulating again pretending he doesn't understand scale and probability.


Why don't you play lottery MRZ, after all the chances of winning 5 million USD are equal to losing 5 bucks - it's sure profit!


Arguing with them is similar to arguing with anti-vaxxers, because no matter how many of their arguments are disproved they just instantaneously mutate to something new that is equally invalid. In this fashion they are quite similar to creationists as well, who will continue to argue the inherent truthfulness of their belief system even as contradictory evidence is presented ad infinitum.

Image

Image

Image

There are various things you are failing to take into consideration. One is that you are lumping viewing and distributing together, nothing says that CP would have to be legal to distribution even if it were legal to view, so your worries about google and porn websites is not even related to arguments about looking at CP only to distribution of it. Second of all, you act like the rate of viewing is what matters, but this only actually matters if viewing such images actually causes an effect on the people depicted in them, but thinking this is true takes us back to the original literal interpretation of revictimization, which is a religious delusion similar to voodoo. Her concern about someone seeing the image exists independently of anyone seeing it, it doesn't matter the probability that someone will see it, and someone seeing it actually will have no effect on her concern, unless she is clairvoyant these happenings are isolated from one another.

Her concern about someone seeing the image exists independently of anyone seeing it, it doesn't matter the probability that someone will see it,

Another manipulation.

You are implying victims are too dumb to roughly assess the probability of running into something that is illegal and hidden in the darkest corners of the web and something that is legal and widely available to view.

Rotting Penis wrote:
Her concern about someone seeing the image exists independently of anyone seeing it, it doesn't matter the probability that someone will see it,

Another manipulation.

You are implying victims are too dumb to roughly assess the probability of running into something that is illegal and hidden in the darkest corners of the web and something that is legal and widely available to view.


Do you think they allocate their thoughts about someone looking at their image in proportion to some survey they conduct on the prevalence of CP viewing? I'm inclined toward thinking these figures will be orthogonal.

mrz wrote:
Rotting Penis wrote:Another manipulation.

You are implying victims are too dumb to roughly assess the probability of running into something that is illegal and hidden in the darkest corners of the web and something that is legal and widely available to view.


Do you think they allocate their thoughts about someone looking at their image in proportion to some survey they conduct on the prevalence of CP viewing? I'm inclined toward thinking these figures will be orthogonal to one another.

OMG, when will you just stop making a fool out of yourself.

No, not in proportion to "a survey" but in proportion to common sense as I explained above:

if it's illegal and
google removed it from search results
bing removed it from search results
all porn websites removed it under threat of HEAVY penalties

their parents don't use Tor
their friends don't watch child pornography

if anybody publicly says they watched it, they can go to prison

and what is left is a bunch of sick people on deep web,

the chances of somebody she knows seeing her are 1000's times smaller than if it was legal

It's common sense that the chances of it being viewed are diminished thousand-fold, you don't need a survey for this

You are as morally disingenuous, and religiously obsessed as you ever have been. :pistodouble:

You're still a sick fuck OBSESSED with underage girls half your age, and everything you write here is a rationalization and massive COPE.

mrz wrote:Discovered by an aspie;

1. Photographs are magical voodoo dolls that cause what happened in them to happen again when viewed


Internet images do affect the way people think. If that weren't true, then third wave feminism would never have happened. Images of child pornography perpetuates MORE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, which is often a side-effect of child sexual abuse and/or human trafficking. And you know what? When underage girls have rough animal sex on camera with adult men, it fucks with their minds....and makes it much harder for them to properly PAIR BOND in a loving, monogamous relationship. :evil:

Underage girls who fuck 30-year-old men on camera are poor candidates for marriage or relationships, because this type of activity mentally damages them.

Many 14-year-old girls don't understand this.

Child pornography laws do not perpetuate the prison industrial complex. Draconian drug laws perpetuate the prison industrial complex.

Stop pretending that you don't know this. :x

mrz wrote:2. There is a secret 20 billion dollar CP industry, that nobody has ever identified and no proof of exists


Child pornography is an INDUSTRY.

This INDUSTRY is NOT primarily motivated by financial profits, but rather more truly motivated by satiating the sexual desires of adult MEN. Child pornography is specifically released on the Internet FOR AN AUDIENCE. That audience is pedophiles and hebephiles who are sexually OBSESSED with underage girls.

"Industry" is the production of goods or related services within an economy. In this case, "economy" is the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. SEXUAL GRATIFICATION is the "profit" for pedophiles and hebephiles, and is a form of "currency" in the CP industry and CP culture.

mrz wrote:3. The nation of Germany has legalized the rape of children


You know, I've made the MISTAKE of assuming that you were right about Germany's age of consent laws. I never questioned you when you ranted about Germany's age of consent laws being age 14.

But it turns out that YOU LIED.

Yes, 14-year-old girls can legally have sex....but there's an addendum to the law. It's usually illegal for adults age 21 and up to have sex with kids under age 16. If one person is aged 14 or 15, the other must be younger than 21, or else they can be charged with coercion and exploitation (if the younger person makes a complaint).....even if they agreed to having sex.

It's forbidden for a person over 21-years-old (adult) to perform any sexual act with a person under 16, if the young person is not capable of sexual self-determination. This determination can only be made after the victim has been
given a psychological examination. This last regulation is pursued only on complaint of the victim's parents or foster-parents, except for cases of public interest.

Practically speaking, that means NO JAILBAIT FOR MRZ. :twisted: :uzi:

You're such a disingenuous subhuman. :uzi:

mrz wrote:4. Drug synthesis is a form of sorcery as described by the Bible


Child pornography laws do not perpetuate the prison industrial complex. Draconian drug laws perpetuate the prison industrial complex.

mrz wrote:5. The only medically approved treatment for drug addiction is to convert to Christianity


Child pornography laws do not perpetuate the prison industrial complex. Draconian drug laws perpetuate the prison industrial complex.

mrz wrote:6. The smoke of hell is from burning marijuana


Child pornography laws do not perpetuate the prison industrial complex. Draconian drug laws perpetuate the prison industrial complex.

mrz wrote:7. The mental health community has been subverted by a pedophile Cabal


You're still a virgin, fapping to images of underage girls....and then you proceed towards being self-righteous about it on the Internet. I think you're either 26 or 27, and I'm guessing that you'll be 30-years-old by 2019.

With each passing year, your jailbait obsession becomes increasingly alarming and pathetic.

mrz wrote:8. The majority of males are secret pedophiles


No. :uzi:

Actually to be fair, I agree with MRZ on many points, such as:

1. lower age of consent
2. much lower or lack of punishment for watching CP
3. lower punishment for distribution of CP

But I admit that I:
1. Don't really care that much about wellbeing of someone else's daughters. Why would I, especially as an incel? They already procreated and made kids, why would I sympathize with them? They wouldn't sympathize with me and see me as trash.

2. I believe the harm done by most "child molestation" is blown out of proportion. Sure, forceful rape does, but some fondling isn't really a big thing for girls, especially considering point 1 above.

3. I believe a lot of pubescents and pre-pubescents are sexually curious and they are capable of enjoying sex. I personally was sexually attracted to girls when I was as young as 6 yo. I remember I couldn't take my eyes off girls' legs in pantyhose when they wore skirts on my first year of school. I already dreamed about touching those legs when I was 6 fucking years old!

4. I'm a pervert and I don't give a fuck about morality


But everytime MRZ opens his mouth it's just impossible to agree with him. I can't stand his dishonesty, manipulation and cope when trying to prove he's the guardian of morality, when in fact he just wants to touch some kiddies

You're still a sick fuck OBSESSED with underage girls half your age, and everything you write here is a rationalization and massive COPE.


I agree it is a rationalization;

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rationalization

2. to remove unreasonable elements from.
3. to make rational or conformable to reason.


I removed the unreasonable elements from the arguments of the Prison Industrial Complex, and realized that there was nothing left. I made their claims of a magical voodoo process rational by viewing them figuratively rather than literally, and realized that this only functioned to make them incoherent and non sequitur.

However, you don't mean the word rationalize in this way, rather you use it as the word "heresy" was utilized in the past;

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been. By now these labels have lost their sting. They always do. By now they're mostly used ironically. But in their time, they had real force.


Rationalization is the word that the followers of the Prison Industrial Cult use to identify and neutralize heresy, or anything that disagrees with them, which is pretty much anything that would reduce their profit margins. This word is taught to their preachers during their seminary training in social sciences, where it is defined as anything that goes against what they are being taught.

Internet images do affect the way people think. If that weren't true, then third wave feminism would never have happened. Images of child pornography perpetuates MORE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, which is often a side-effect of child sexual abuse and/or human trafficking. And you know what? When underage girls have rough animal sex on camera with adult men, it fucks with their minds....and makes it much harder for them to properly PAIR BOND in a loving, monogamous relationship. :evil:


First of all, every statistical analysis ever done has shown an inverse correlation between rates of CP viewing and child sex abuse. In countries that have legalized CP viewing, there has always been an immediate drop in child sex abuse rates. It is unambiguous that availability of CP reduces child sex abuse rates.

Second of all, your second argument is incorrectly lumping viewing with production, a common mistake made by the people who argue in support of the faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

Lumpers and splitters are opposing factions in any discipline which has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories. The lumper-splitter problem occurs when there is the need to create classifications and assign examples to them, for example schools of literature, biological taxa and so on. A "lumper" is an individual who takes a gestalt view of a definition, and assigns examples broadly, assuming that differences are not as important as signature similarities. A "splitter" is an individual who takes precise definitions, and creates new categories to classify samples that differ in key ways.


CP production and CP viewing are not the same thing. You are thinking at an incorrect layer of abstraction, you are looking at the entire instance rather than the properties it has. This is the same mistake made by the people who argue against using the hypothermia data from the holocaust

Image

Image

Image

You need to decompose and not look at the gestalt. Your argument has no place in a conversation about looking at pictures, any more than it would be sensible to assert that the Jews were harmed by the holocaust in response to someone saying holocaust images should not be banned, it is incoherent mixed up thinking.

Underage girls who fuck 30-year-old men on camera are poor candidates for marriage or relationships, because this type of activity mentally damages them.

Many 14-year-old girls don't understand this.


First of all I don't care about Christian monogamy so don't even bother to mention it in arguments to me. Second of all, I refer you once again to my previous point about how you are introducing something that is orthogonal to the conversation, nobody said anything about fucking JBs on camera in this thread you came in here and started discussing this as if it were related, manifesting your deficit in proper abstraction.

Child pornography laws do not perpetuate the prison industrial complex. Draconian drug laws perpetuate the prison industrial complex.

Stop pretending that you don't know this. :x


Of course I know that the war on drugs is their biggest source of revenue, however it is you who fails to realize that they are doing exactly the same thing with matters of sex, they are both from the class of moral panic, though they are different instantiations of it. The Prison Industrial Complex is in the business of inciting and maintaining moral panics so they can profit from the robbery and slavery of the folk devil classes they synthesize, they have done this with drugs, and they have additionally done this with sexual matters, in fact they have probably done this even with things I don't realize yet, seeing as I first became aware of their conspiracy in relation to drugs, and did not learn they had simultaneously done the same thing with sex until some time later.

Child pornography is an INDUSTRY.

This INDUSTRY is NOT primarily motivated by financial profits, but rather more truly motivated by satiating the sexual desires of adult MEN. Child pornography is specifically released on the Internet FOR AN AUDIENCE. That audience is pedophiles and hebephiles who are sexually OBSESSED with underage girls.

"Industry" is the production of goods or related services within an economy. In this case, "economy" is the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. SEXUAL GRATIFICATION is the "profit" for pedophiles and hebephiles, and is a form of "currency" in the CP industry and CP culture.


CP is a phenomenon that has had an insignificant industry associated with it, in stark contrast to the screams of the True Believers, which have shouted through thousands of media outlets the completely unsupported lie that it is a multi billion dollar financial industry exploiting children for a profit, a lie that has been repeated by self proclaimed experts in Congress, at the U.N., and numerous other government institutions as truth, influencing policy, despite being a complete fabrication, a mythological construct, a religious tenet, a piece of propaganda that was intentionally designed and proselytized in order to disconnect people from reality and induce in them a state of panic that could be controlled by the propagandists in furtherance of achieving their ends, their ends being the increasing of the incarceration rate and the diversion of billions of dollars to their own organizations.

There is truth in non-financial markets existing in the form of restricted membership communities with upload requirements, though this still does not consist of the majority of CP distribution, though I agree that such sites should obviously not be allowed, in fact they arose from the criminalization of CP viewing in an attempt to prevent LE HUMINT infiltration, other than that they exist as producer forums, and once again that is a completely unrelated matter that you injected.

You know, I've made the MISTAKE of assuming that you were right about Germany's age of consent laws. I never questioned you when you ranted about Germany's age of consent laws being age 14.

But it turns out that YOU LIED.

Yes, 14-year-old girls can legally have sex....but there's an addendum to the law. It's usually illegal for adults age 21 and up to have sex with kids under age 16. If one person is aged 14 or 15, the other must be younger than 21, or else they can be charged with coercion and exploitation (if the younger person makes a complaint).....even if they agreed to having sex.

It's forbidden for a person over 21-years-old (adult) to perform any sexual act with a person under 16, if the young person is not capable of sexual self-determination. This determination can only be made after the victim has been
given a psychological examination. This last regulation is pursued only on complaint of the victim's parents or foster-parents, except for cases of public interest.


I didn't lie, that is always exactly what I said. We've even covered this before, in the past you have also accused me of lying after finding this, but in reality it just reaffirmed exactly what I said. It is not usually illegal for people older than 21 to fuck 14 year olds in Germany, you are reading that into the law to reflect your own personal opinions, attempting to integrate how a first world country could have such disparate laws from your own, but you are integrating it in a distorted fashion, a concept that I covered in my post on Theory Of Reality;

Image

It is legal for 22+ year olds to fuck 14 year olds in Germany so long as they don't exploit their lack of ability for sexual self determinism, for example they have special laws in relation to such people fucking JBs, such as inability to buy them gifts and such, if you avoid violating these special laws, and the JB does not claim that you exploited her, then you are not going to get in trouble, so it is only illegal in specific circumstances, not usually.

Child pornography laws do not perpetuate the prison industrial complex. Draconian drug laws perpetuate the prison industrial complex.


They are two separate instantiations of moral panics controlled by the prison industrial complex for a profit.

mrz wrote:8. The majority of males are secret pedophiles


No. :uzi:


Yes they actually do believe this by their definition of pedophilia.
Last edited by mrz on Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's very common for the religiously delusional to have such thought patterns

Image

Ona (Thailand) wrote:^ An excellent illustration of circular reasoning at work:

A, If B --> B, If A.

The conclusion (proposition) is true if its premise is true, and the premise is true if its conclusion is true. I could not have said it any better myself.


It surprises me that people like sacrificial lamb can see what they did with drugs, and see that many people still buy into their bullshit drug propaganda, like he knows that many people will say the war on drugs is a good thing, and think that drugs are these horrible extremely dangerous things that should be wiped off the face of the earth, and argue that using drugs is not a victimless crime, and generally have egregious thought disorders in relation to drugs......

But he cannot see that the BAZILLION DOLLAR CP industry, voodoo revictimization, etc, are just like the "Vicious racket with its arms around your children!" that they originally described marijuana as. He cannot see that it is just a new instantiation of the same thing as always from these parasites, in other words a bunch of sensationalist fraudulent bullshit designed to scare society into letting them enslave subsections of it for absolutely no reason. When he argues with their propaganda he is just like the people who argue in support of the war on drugs because they have not woken up from the propaganda bombardment yet, like he was able to come to reality in relation to drugs, but still lives in their fantasy world in relation to the sex hysteria.

He is also confused in saying that they perpetuate themselves with the war on drugs, like I think by that he means that the war on drugs is their primary revenue source, which is accurate, the parasites have sucked trillions of dollars from society based entirely on the drug laws that they fight so hard to maintain at the expense of all of the rest of society (and with completely fraudulent propaganda), however, the war on people looking at certain pictures is itself a multi-billion dollar industry, and it is only projected to grow, particularly as their revenue from robbing and enslaving drug users is endangered;

http://www.cnet.com/news/senator-lets-m ... gal-files/

WASHINGTON--A prominent Senate Democrat on Wednesday said federal and local police should use custom software to monitor peer-to-peer networks for illegal activity, and he wants to spend $1 billion in tax dollars to help make that happen.


Just a single proposed bill in relation to funding for CP operations, already a one billion dollar profit to the prison industrial complex. So no, the sex hysteria is not yet a multi trillion dollar industry, however billions of dollars are tied up on the perpetuation of these laws, laws that were created based on ideas that we know today to be completely false, but there is too much industry built up around these laws staying in existence, the same as the industry built up around drug prohibition fights tooth and nail to maintain drug prohibition despite the fact that we know today that drug prohibition is harmful to society.

This is why the prison industrial complex is a merchant of doubt;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

Merchants of Doubt is a 2010 non-fiction book by American historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. It identifies parallels between the global warming controversy and earlier controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain, DDT, and the hole in the ozone layer. Oreskes and Conway write that in each case "keeping the controversy alive" by spreading doubt and confusion after a scientific consensus had been reached, was the basic strategy of those opposing action.[


They are an industry that relies on maintaining moral panic to maintain their revenue, and this entails keeping people in a state of panic even after it is proven that their fear is unfounded.

Image


turns into

Image

The billion dollar CP industry turns into voodoo revictimization, etc etc.....it is a never ending campaign to instill fear in society such that they will acquiesce to the mass slavery that is the sustenance of the parasites.

Image

Image

Image

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/je ... e-vaccine/

There’s a famous saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. My usually corollary to this saying is that good intentions coupled with misinformation and self-righteousness are the straightest and surest route to hell that I can think of, and among the best examples of this corollary are parents who have been misled by the pseudoscience of the cottage industry of autism quackery that depends on the belief that vaccines cause autism for its profitability.
PreviousNext

Topic Tags

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest