The invisible potential predator

tiggy wrote:It's pretty easy to see whether an image is real or CG or drawn. You just look at it, and you can see how it was made. It's not nearly as hard as you're making it out to be.

That is not the point. If an actual child can be recognised, even though disguised by various manipulations which computer technology allows, the result is much the same as REAL CP. That is the issue, and one that cannot just be swept away as irrelevant. I really am at a loss to think you cannot see this unless you have either never seen such imagery or you are just stonewalling - which is the usual tactic.

20,000 were fooled by this computer-generated 'child'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24818769 ... Computer-generated 'Sweetie' catches online predators

YouthRightsRadical wrote:I personally don't believe that the sympathetic magic involved with you being harmed by someone across the globe you've never heard exists looking at a picture of you, but I am in the distinct minority in my skepticism.

Ugh, you mean you don't believe in VOODOO! My heavens!

Seriously, I find it incredible how many people do.

Serious Lee wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:I personally don't believe that the sympathetic magic involved with you being harmed by someone across the globe you've never heard exists looking at a picture of you, but I am in the distinct minority in my skepticism.

Ugh, you mean you don't believe in VOODOO! My heavens!

Seriously, I find it incredible how many people do.

Well, it's the issue of privacy. It's not physical or even psychological harm... but it still can violate rights.

Consider it this way. A hypothetical scenario for understanding. A group of criminals create a magical device to peer into your bathroom in your home to view you naked, watch you poop, changing clothes, showering, that sort of thing. They know it will never get back to you - you'll never know it happened. It will never affect you negatively. But they laugh at you. They show their friends. They make crude jokes about you and your mother.

So while it had no effect on you physically or psychologically, I think it's still morally wrong and violates people's rights and dignity.

As for cop this' assertion that there are methods which preserve recognizability while appearing computer-generated, you can still use biometrics to prove who it was and that it was a recording of them. That's if the assertion is true. If they are truly recognizable then they can be identified. Otherwise it's just, oh, it kinda looks like them. And then it should be legal.

As for cop this' assertion that there are methods which preserve recognizability while appearing computer-generated, you can still use biometrics to prove who it was and that it was a recording of them. That's if the assertion is true. If they are truly recognizable then they can be identified. Otherwise it's just, oh, it kinda looks like them. And then it should be legal.

But it is too late after their images have been plastered all over the internet. And what if the individual is kept out of the public limelight and off the radar - it might take years before this was known. Many countries just don't have the levels of child protection that we in the West expect. A law that allows this to happen is not a law that protects children in my view.

cop this wrote:But it is too late after their images have been plastered all over the internet. And what if the individual is kept out of the public limelight and off the radar - it might take years before this was known. Many countries just don't have the levels of child protection that we in the West expect. A law that allows this to happen is not a law that protects children in my view.

A law that punishes children for sexting each other does not protect children. Quite the opposite, in fact.

tiggy wrote:

cop this wrote:But it is too late after their images have been plastered all over the internet. And what if the individual is kept out of the public limelight and off the radar - it might take years before this was known. Many countries just don't have the levels of child protection that we in the West expect. A law that allows this to happen is not a law that protects children in my view.

A law that punishes children for sexting each other does not protect children. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So this somehow affects the issue of virtual images? Typical to bring in another issue rather than address the actual problem.

tiggy wrote:

Serious Lee wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:I personally don't believe that the sympathetic magic involved with you being harmed by someone across the globe you've never heard exists looking at a picture of you, but I am in the distinct minority in my skepticism.

Ugh, you mean you don't believe in VOODOO! My heavens!

Seriously, I find it incredible how many people do.

Well, it's the issue of privacy. It's not physical or even psychological harm... but it still can violate rights.

Consider it this way. A hypothetical scenario for understanding. A group of criminals create a magical device to peer into your bathroom in your home to view you naked, watch you poop, changing clothes, showering, that sort of thing. They know it will never get back to you - you'll never know it happened. It will never affect you negatively. But they laugh at you. They show their friends. They make crude jokes about you and your mother.

So while it had no effect on you physically or psychologically, I think it's still morally wrong and violates people's rights and dignity.

In that scenario, the voyeurs are actively spying and producing. I draw a line between the production and mere consumption of material. People who produce and who support the producers are the victimizers. People who consume without supporting the producers are neutral as far as I can see. Again, destroying copies of material already produced and distributed does nothing to improve the situation or restore the privacy of the individual who was victimized by the producers.

tiggy wrote:As for cop this' assertion that there are methods which preserve recognizability while appearing computer-generated, you can still use biometrics to prove who it was and that it was a recording of them. That's if the assertion is true. If they are truly recognizable then they can be identified. Otherwise it's just, oh, it kinda looks like them. And then it should be legal.

He doesn't actually care about kids. We've long ago established this. This "people will make it look like CG while really being a modified photograph" argument is used exclusively by people trying to ban CG materials, because banning CG materials was their goal in and of itself. If they actually gave a damn about what they claim to care about, there are numerous regulatory schemes that could accomplish their stated goals without banning CG materials, including the same sort of inspections and sworn statements you get from regular porn producers about the ages, consent, and STD testing status of their models.

But (still intrusive) regulations like requiring CG porn producers to be able to provide wireframes and early drafts to the authorities wouldn't accomplish their real goal of banning porn they don't like.

DayZero wrote:Hi..


Im a 30ich yo man living in Europe, and like som many other invisible pedophiles, i live a relative normal life. I Have a family, work, go to parties, vacations and so on..

A lot of us live "normal" lives.

DayZero wrote:But thats not who i am...I am a wery sexual person. I am predator.
When i was young, it was enough to look at a girl-model at a magasine, or some randome girl at the beach. Then go home and get released.

As long as you haven't acted out the urges you are not a monster don't beat yourself up too much

DayZero wrote:I believe, that i am a good person. I need to be, so i dont hurt anyone. But what if i cant?
What if i grow weaker in time when the responsebileties are no longer there.

What experience and/or advise can you guys share..

As long as you think you are a good person don't act on the urges. Believe me the 10 seconds of enjoyment is not worth it. As someone else said a 12 step approach might help you, try a AA/NA meeting think of your drug being young girls. Its what I do, they have no idea.


sry to help the derailment.... if you really want to protect children, why not ban cars children may be harmed in accidents, or spoons children get fat and may be harmed by eating to much, if you want to ban everything that may harm children there is a pretty big list, should have to prove a crime happened to go after it

metal wrote:As long as you think you are a good person don't act on the urges. Believe me the 10 seconds of enjoyment is not worth it. As someone else said a 12 step approach might help you, try a AA/NA meeting think of your drug being young girls. Its what I do, they have no idea.

Right now there is not a problem for me to resist my urges. I guess you talk from experience when you say its not worth it. And maby you are right. But i guess its like a drug. That you urge for it every day. Eaven if you know it wil not give you exactly what you want. I think your AA meeting sugestion sounds great. I could just say that i have a drug or alcohole adiction and follov the steps like you said. I think i wil do that if my wilpower starts to fade.

Thank you for your advice and caring