b3ta.com board

Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 8704154 (Thread)

morally weak?

you're claiming that owning a picture ought to be a crime. please grow up.

(

postbear has metal knees, Tue 2 Sep 2008, 3:59, archived)

i think what he means is the way the picture was put into existance.

children being tortured and forced into fuck pics.

other than this i have agreed with all your points.

(

d d, Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:01, archived)

i asked him/her about that twice already, with no reply.

that's one example of child porn. it could be a drawing, or a photoshop or a kid in the bath pic - we don't know, but they're all childporn in certain eyes.

(

postbear has metal knees, Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:03, archived)

i think a drawing or photoshop isn't so bad myself.

as long as no one is harmed i don't care what they do.

(

d d, Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:09, archived)

so if you found 4000 drawings/pics whatever of naked kids

on a friends computer, you woudln't think twice.
He must just like downloading stuff...

(

PointlessCamel Last one on drugs is a queer., Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:12, archived)

i have about 250 000 pics of people on disc.

many are nudes, some of them are children. some are of people i know, and some are of strangers. i also have about 100 000 pics of plants and landscapes. should the tabloids be scaring people that i'm about to come to their yards and fuck their trees?

(

postbear has metal knees, Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:23, archived)

I never said that,

I'm saying that owning '4000' pictures of child pornography is worth investigation. What the shit does 'grow up' mean anyway, really? We are not in a school playground.

(

PointlessCamel Last one on drugs is a queer., Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:06, archived)

grow up means just that - grow up.

you made a lame joke and i made an absurd wish in response. when asked about it by another poster, i replied, explaining my dissatisfaction with a public witch hunt. knowing exactly NOTHING about the actual ages of his victims, you've proceded to take the stance of a deeply offended person for no perceptible reason.

further, you've carefully avoided questions about the nature of the pics that he had, when that is entirely pertinent to the fact of whether or not he's any sort of sex criminal in ACT and not merely FANTASY.

(

postbear has metal knees, Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:16, archived)

Well thanks for clearing that up, we can all go and 'grow up'......?

Here are your pertinent facts that I have not 'carefully' avoided:
1999 Glitter arrested with 4000 pics of child pornography (with definition, as it looks like you need to have it spelt out for you.)

Again: In late 2005, Gary Glitter was arrested and charged with molesting two under-aged girls, aged 10 and 11.

Sounds to me like you are the one living in a fantasy world.

edit: more info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter

(

PointlessCamel Last one on drugs is a queer., Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:24, archived)

oh good grief.

arrested, charged and not prosecuted = innocent, not guilty. got it?

and a wikipedia definition has no meaning under the law of any country - the laws vary, too, from place to place and over time. what is legal where you are may be illegal here, and vice versa. to add hilarity to this, the very first sentence of the wiki article begins "Child pornography refers to material depicting children being in a state of undress..." which only supports my question - what is the nature of the pics he had? Were they just naked pics or drawings or silly-ass photoshops, or were they actually porn pics featuring underage kids?

we don't know! further, in my mind (and in the minds of many people, some of whom are posting here and some of whom are on the forefront of this legal issue), possessing pictures of illicit acts should not necessarily be a crime.

please don't try people by their wikipedia articles. it's just not... sane.

(

postbear has metal knees, Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:34, archived)