Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

GoManVanGogh · Vociferator Joined: 18 Nov 2003 Posts: 365

http://www.pyesetz.furtopia.org/defense-of-pedophilia.php

(Not safe for blood pressure)

ZenZhu · TOP POSTER! Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 1510

You know, I read the first paragraph and stopped. The very last sentence of that clearly indicates what follows is a downward spiral into idiocy.

Donotsue · Vociferator Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 666

The end makes sense.. =)

In the United States it is a crime to bring a gun into a school. In many schools, under the "Zero Tolerance" policy, it is also a crime to draw a picture of a gun while in a school. But pictures are not considered dangerous in democracies. Only totalitarians are afraid of them. Didn't we used to make fun of the Soviets when they imprisoned people for "thought crimes"? Having vanquished our enemy, we have now become them. I was so glad, back in 1984, that things seemed to be going fairly well at that time, but George Orwell's chronology was just a little off, by twenty years.

weird_guy_in_the_corner · Venter Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 258

This guy seems to think that we should let the pedophiles hide in their houses wanking off to their kiddy porn because it doesn't harm anybody. But what happens when the pedophile gets sick and tired of the pictures? Then he goes out and starts looking for the real thing. Then we end up with another fucked up person on our hands. The cycle repeats.

Mastertran · Prattler Joined: 07 Oct 2004 Posts: 174

You know I'll bet just maybe he's got another agenda and I think you all know what I mean.

It's kid fucking if you didn't guess. Man the world's weird.

nothingkat · Qualificator Joined: 30 Mar 2004 Posts: 19

I stopped reading after:

"In Defense of Pedophilia"

This guy wants to protest against protecting children from being viewed as sex objects because he feels it is not fair that people who want to molest kids are being treated like they are SCUM. In his eyes, they are not SCUM, but people with a normal fetish. Like Zoophilia!!!

God, no. I think he's just a pedophile who's trying to make himself feel sure of his sickness.

mouse · Needs to get out more Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 1030

Actually guys, this is "Pyesetz the dog" doing this shit... he does it all the time and thinks hes being shocking by writing these types of essays and stories.

Look him up on alt.lifestyle.furry

AngryPuritan · Vociferator Joined: 15 Jan 2005 Posts: 399

This is pathetic. It's like "In defense of Osama".

I'm willing to hear that, yes, it's illegal because it's harmful, not because it's icky (which is why simulated child porn is legal in some nations),but he's defending the harmful bit!

SquareMoogle · Venter Joined: 16 Dec 2004 Posts: 238

Hmm, the horse shit the came flowing onto my monitor after clicking that link was amazing. I did find one nugget I can agree with, "no piece of crap I designed could possibly arouse anyone." It doesn't seem as bad as the likes of EbolaLupus due to his correct grammar and spelling, but when you really think about it these kinds of people really are the absolute bottom scum of the fandumb. (Subject to change, someone is bound to out-freak him.)

Kadius · Vociferator Joined: 10 Feb 2004 Posts: 637

This is pathetic. It's like "In defense of Osama". <...>

The sad thing is, you could defend Osama a thousand times better than someone who likes to fuck kids.

Someone who harms a child like that should be shot. End of story.

Dogthing · Vociferator Joined: 26 Oct 2003 Posts: 522

In the United States it is a crime to bring a gun into a school. In many schools, under the "Zero Tolerance" policy, it is also a crime to draw a picture of a gun while in a school.

That's silly, I used to draw a lot of guns in school, and they were typically being wielded by ninja-masked stick figures and slaughtering countless small animals or possibly jews or goblins. My teachers saw some and thought they were hilarious. :>

AngryPuritan · Vociferator Joined: 15 Jan 2005 Posts: 399

In the United States it is a crime to bring a gun into a school. In many schools, under the "Zero Tolerance" policy, it is also a crime to draw a picture of a gun while in a school.

That's silly, I used to draw a lot of guns in school, and they were typically being wielded by ninja-masked stick figures and slaughtering countless small animals or possibly jews or goblins. My teachers saw some and thought they were hilarious. :>

What about Jewish Goblins?

Rankin · TOP POSTER! Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 1514

What about Jewish Goblins?

h8 crime!1!!!!!!11

I had a jewish coworker once call me an anti-semite because I thought his name was enunciated "Poll-ock", rather than what he claimed to be "Poll-ack", despite spelling, and having never heard it, and the fact I had a roommate with the name of 'Schwartz' at the time.

I made it a point to fuck with his head from that point on.

DA · Vociferator Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 595

:roll:

Oh yes it doesn't hurt anyone ...

None of these idiots ever seem to think about how the pedophiles who do rape children's minds work. They often justify it, saying the child wanted it all too often.

If you go and tell them it's a normal fetish and it's okay to wank to child porn even fake child porn you're just pushing them a step closer and making the transition to twisting reality easier and quicker for them.

mouse · Needs to get out more Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 1030

:roll:

Oh yes it doesn't hurt anyone ...

None of these idiots ever seem to think about how the pedophiles who do rape children's minds work. They often justify it, saying the child wanted it all too often.

Let me state it again, not in defense of Pyesetz, but its known he does these sorts of things on purpose to make some sort of scene.... albeit, ineptly.

Don't get trolled by furries, plz :?

DA · Vociferator Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 595

:roll:

Oh yes it doesn't hurt anyone ...

None of these idiots ever seem to think about how the pedophiles who do rape children's minds work. They often justify it, saying the child wanted it all too often.

Let me state it again, not in defense of Pyesetz, but its known he does these sorts of things on purpose to make some sort of scene.... albeit, ineptly.

Don't get trolled by furries, plz :?

It was more a comment on how a lot of the cub art group into that sort of thing justify their fetishes. It drives me up the wall as well that most of the one's who say it should be accepted as a normal fetish who also do not share that fetish seem to believe it's harmless.

Jerry Collins · Vociferator Joined: 16 Jul 2003 Posts: 335

As to is or ain't,that's not my job to say..but as the Ilmedius Commander said to Capt.Harlock in"My youth in Arcadia"..."When we meet in Hell I'll buy you a drink!" (jer)

Jerry Collins · Vociferator Joined: 16 Jul 2003 Posts: 335

Oh,I'm sorry...I thought it was an argument about religeous beliefs or the lack there of,and as a very unconventional believer,I was trying to express my opion that you don't have to be a snotty 700- club thug,or some smarmy Marxist lickspittle git...I didn't notice the earlier part of the thread :oops: Oh well,I'm just as flawed and mortal as the next poor soul..BUT DEFENDING :shock: :shock: PEDOPHILLIA?????!!!! :evil: :shock: .....sorry,after much of my teens being ruined by 70's era "chickenhawks",I say.."FEED'EM TO THE SLOGS AND PARAMITES!!!!feet first....slowly... :twisted: (Jer)

Charisma · Venter Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 234

I've always wondered whether drawn kiddy porn was a plus or a minus to society in the case of whther it prevents more child abuse or not. I guess even if the research was made and collected, how can we generalize? Maybe it would stop some pedos hurting kids and it would encouarge others? Its impossible to know.

"It would be crime punishable by imprisonment to transmit such a picture from a US-based computer"
So its actually against the law to draw kiddy porn and email it? I didn't even know that. And it does seem odd to me, much like not being able to draw a gun in a school.

Shmeckopolis · Vociferator Joined: 31 Mar 2004 Posts: 314

Technically, the zero tolerance policy differs from school to school. Some are more anal than others.

Though trafficing actual child pornography is a crime in the US, I'm not so sure about drawings of it. The biggest reason the actual child porn is a crime is because actual children had to be harmed to make it. But, I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong.

But, nothingkat best summed up my feelings, when he said...

I stopped reading after:

"In Defense of Pedophilia"

This guy wants to protest against protecting children from being viewed as sex objects because he feels it is not fair that people who want to molest kids are being treated like they are SCUM. In his eyes, they are not SCUM, but people with a normal fetish. Like Zoophilia!!!

God, no. I think he's just a pedophile who's trying to make himself feel sure of his sickness.

0cool · Lurker Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Posts: 1

I just wrote a long reply detailing free speech, damaging speech, etc.

Then I realized.

"He wants to have sex, with children."

...

And pretty much everything I would have said about that has been detailed previously.

And you're right Shmeckopolis, that's why it's illegal.

ZenZhu · TOP POSTER! Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 1510

I think the primary conflict between drawn pedo imagery and the concept of free speech comes from the idea that in crimes where someone or something is victimized, it's often been shown there is a progression in thought leading up to the crime. The person may seek to sate their thoughts or fantasies through imagery. At some point, however, they become desensitized to that, and it no longer provides enough stimulus to the person. In order to continue to indulge their thoughts/fantasies/fetishes, they have to take it to the next level. This continues until the person cannot derive gratification in any manner other than performing the act.

This can be the case with almost any fetish. At some point, the idea seems odd, be it BDSM, dressing up and playing "good cop, bad cop," or whatever. Then, the idea starts to hold some allure, if nothing else as something "naughty," forbidden fruit. The person might look at porn involving the fantasy or fetish. Eventually, they might try and meet someone where they can indulge their desire, or pitch the idea to their significant other. There's nothing wrong with fantasy and fetish play, so long as no one gets hurt and everyone consents.

Fantasies and fetishes involving victimization of animals, children, or other adults (zoophilia, pedophilia, rape), however, do not simply embody some kind of kinky sexual gratification, but the high some people derive from victimizing another living being. Normal sexual urges are coupled with abnormal urges to willfully hurt someone or something.. be it physically, mentally, or emotionally.

While drawing pedo imagery or looking at non-photographic imagery doesn't harm children in the act of creating it, the creator or viewer is deriving some measure of satisfaction from the concept of victimizing children. Some furries are often quick to say there's a big difference between fantasizing about something and actually doing it.

And sure, humans have errant thoughts about things that are not good often. Just the other day I was walking behind one of the girls in my office. I'm not particularly fond of this person, and she's incredibly thin. I was marveling at the fact that it would be amazingly easy to snap her spine with a couple of well-placed kicks, because she is so skinny. But, this didn't mean I wanted to kill her, or would kick her. It was more a reflection on the amazing frailty of human life. While such thoughts occur in many people, the difference is that we recognize that these are bad things and dismiss them.

Another example is seeing a pretty 16-year-old girl. A guy may look at her and think about how she's pretty. There may even be an element of sexual arousal. But, a normal person knows to actually consumate such an act, or continue to indulge such thoughts is bad. A lot of times, such thinking isn't even "Here I am at 50 and she's 16... that would be hot." but more like "Man, if I was 16 again I'd be so all over her.

But, when a person is taking such thoughts and perpetuating and nurturing them by creating or fapping to pedo imagery, they're skirting the bounds between recognizing something is bad and actively indulging those ideas.

So, as much as I hate the old "slippery slope" arguments, the conflict that arises is how certain can you be that the guy drawing cub art won't someday move on to actual child porn, and then from there to actual child rape? It can be a tough call.

Donotsue · Vociferator Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 666

But to harass the people who droo cub porn is not allowed.. for they haven't committed any crime yet.... untill drawing too is banned...
which again would restrict everyone's freedoms.. It's an endless vicious cycle.

it'd be like... restricting top speed on cars to eliminate speeding! =)

Hmm...Anyone know if ya wish to say, make a book on child abuse.. Do ya need a permit of somekind to hold the illegal material...?
Or can any pedo claim they were just researching the subject for a book! =)

There's yer answer.. Ya need a permit to droo or handle pedo shit...
just like ya need gun permits.. =)
And then gvmnt could monitor yer sick activities forever and ever...

Heck.... electronic collars for us all! =) Vote for me! Ich bin ein Furrmucker! =)

DA · Vociferator Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 595

I think there's a minor difference between a book on child abuse an a drawing of Inuyasha raping Shippo. :?

It's not a healthy attraction and it is quite common that pedophiles will trying to justify it.

Does this sound familiar?

"She was asking for it, I only did what she wanted me to do" Said about an 11 year old who asked a perfectly innocent question.

It's a form of the slippery slope argument, justify one thing without letting them know it's sick, they'll take another inch. If pedophilia is accepted as a legit sexual orientation then how much easier does it make it for a pedophile to lie to themselves and actually harm a child, because it's a 'normal' orientation therefore there must be children who like it, therefore in the pedophiles mind it gets twisted around into 'helping the child' or into a 'relationship' when the child is in no position to actually agree to it.

Not to mention it's pretty sickening to people who've lived through a pedophile's abuse. Last thing I would think any person whose been abused would want to see is a image glorifying what they suffered. I'm an advocate of zero tolerance myself.

Stoneth · Vociferator Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 545

Heck.... electronic collars for us all! =) Vote for me! Ich bin ein Furrmucker! =)

Wir alle sind besessen
Wir alle sind verflucht
Wir alle sind gekreuzigt
Wir alle sind kaputt
Von Reiztechnologie
Von Zeitekonomie
Von qualitaet das Furry
Und CYDphilosophie

RailFoxen · Venter Joined: 01 Jan 2005 Posts: 251

Eins, zwei, drei, vier. Donotsue, komm tanz mit mir.

But, seriously. What does a society gain by allowing pornography to proliferate? If you can't say access to pedophilic art promotes acts of pedophilia, then you can't say it discourages it, either - so, even assuming access doesn't harm any one person, why allow it? So we can claim we have more freedom? Otherwise the terrorists have already won? Can you stand up to someone and say, 'yes, my country is better, because we allow our citizens to wank to pictures of nude children'? Is anyone afraid that banning pedophilia will nullify the entire First Amendment?

Or are they just using it as a shield to hide behind while they selfishly pleasure themselves?

Donotsue · Vociferator Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 666

It seems the organized rings are already under plenty of supervision...
Only few loose candymen outside schools get away with it... =)

Sure, ban it all I care... =) As long as having one yucky care bear pic in the "Insanity" -folder doesn't send me up the river... =)

That's where I put Faux Paw -pic too. =D

ZenZhu · TOP POSTER! Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 1510

It seems the organized rings are already under plenty of supervision...

Yeah, everyone's keeping a close eye on the church these days. BA DUM BUMP.

Is anyone afraid that banning pedophilia will nullify the entire First Amendment?

Unfortunately, yes, there are people that are deathly afraid of this. What people don't realize is that, within the U.S., the First Amendment fundamentally covers freedom of speech in public areas. If you're talking about athiesm among friends in the park, it's your right to do so. While someone could come up to you and tell you to shut up and repent, their desire to silence you is not backed by law, whereas your freedom to discuss your topic casually among your group is. Likewise, it gives people the ability to rally for causes such as black rights, gay pride, etc. without people being able stifle them simple because they disagree.

Legal channels -- like putting in for a permit to hold the rally or something -- come into play for such rallies, however, so as to make sure the crowds and all don't cause a public disturbance or problems with foot traffic, car traffic, etc.

It also implies the responsibility to exercise sense when enjoying that freedom. In other worse, it's the old "don't shout fire in a movie theater" deal.

I'm certainly not suggesting the First Amendment should be revised for the times, but you do have to think about when it was written. The founding fathers were setting out to create a society free of the oppression of the European monarchies where people could be punished for treason simply for a few errant words about the ruling family uttered in a drunken haze in a tavern. During Japan's isolationist period and then some, a person.. and even their entire family.. could be tried and executed for treason simply because a couple of cross words expressin frustration with the shogun's policies. This was the kind of thing the First Amendment originally sought to protect against.. not the right to wear a dildo and fake tail in the mall.

What people fail to realize when bitching about violation of their First Amendment rights and posting zoo or pedo crap is just because there are a lot of people in an area does not mean that it's public. It may be in public, but a private area. Just because you are in T.G.I. Friday's and there are other people there doesn't mean you can stand up and start saying "I FUCK BABIES AND PUPPIES!" and expect to have the law on your side when the management asks you to leave.

This extends even moreso to the Internet. People mistakenly think that just because you can access millions of sites all over the world the entirety of the Internet is a public place and covered by the concept of free speech. The way I see it, going to someone's website is like going to someone's house or business. You are now within the confines of their private domain, and what you write and do is subject to their approval. If someone comes here and starts posting zoo or pedo images and Comp takes the images down and bans the user, he hasn't violated that person's right to free speech. He has exercised his right to regulate the content on his private site... the same as he would exercise his right to tell someone who was in his living room talking about honestly screwing the kid next door to shut up or leave.

The truth is that most places are private enough that someone can ask you to monitor your words and actions. There are few places private enough that you can do anything you please without any regard for its effects on those around you or the reprocussions of your actions. Those who bitch the loudest about not being able to post zoo or pedo crap or the like fail to realize that where they are posting that stuff is private territory and not subject to full coverage under the First Amendment.

RailFoxen · Venter Joined: 01 Jan 2005 Posts: 251

Hooah. I meant that in the sense that - if pedo art is banned, soon homosexuality will be illegal! Rap music! Peaceful protest and anything but Christianity! TEH BUSHZZOR WILL DESTROY UR FREEDOMS! Okay. These people are obviously idiots, and I simply wanted to illustrate that.

Pedo material isn't really covered under the First Amendment. That applies more to expression, whereas this is most certainly not expression. The artwork is better called a traded commodity, considering what it's used for and why it's made. As such, there's really nothing to protect it. And no reason it should be protected. As I mentioned, does it really make our society better in any way? Certainly doesn't hurt our society to broadly ban its production and trade. What this argument is heading for is our right to practice these things in our own, private, homes. I'm not entirely certain what rights we hold on our own property compared to those enumerated for public property. I don't, however, feel we have any compelling reason to protect it in private.

So. This artwork is completely out of the sphere of the First Amendment, and is fully irrelevant to any discussion about it. In private, well... I don't believe it should be protected. As Zen hypothesized, it could lead to more serious behavior. The idea that pedo art has any redeeming characteristics is... unsupported at best.

Paul · Vociferator Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 551

The problem is definitions. Who gets to define whether something "appeals to the prurient interest" or whether it has "redeeming social value"? This is not as easy as it may seem at first think. When is a drawing of a nude child meant to sexually arouse some twisted dirtbag, and when is it meant to celebrate the human form for its beauty? Different people will find different answers, and the problem is one might very well end up with people getting prosecuted for having a photo of their naked baby on an ice bear rug. Tricky business.

Donotsue · Vociferator Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 666

Narcissist as I am... was just googling for Donotsue... and found dis. =)
Dug up this old thread .... and proudly present to thee:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/pyesetz/15813.html

He sez we are classier than POE! =)

MonicaKitty · Vociferator Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 450

They like us! They really...oh wait, no they don't. Good. =)

RailFoxen · Venter Joined: 01 Jan 2005 Posts: 251

Shame. No response to Zen's essay or myself, or several other coherent arguments presented after the first few days of the thread. That might have been entertaining. I see they pick up on our highbrow furry commentary status. No lowbrow rabble rousing here, no sir.

Stoneth · Vociferator Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 545

"I do say, I believe I have found a site that mentions an essay I did on pedophilia."
"Really? What are they saying?"
"They appear to be deconstructing it."
"OMG! FURRIE HAET CITE! FURSECUTION!"