0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Stan on September 30, 2015, 04:14:15 amQuote from: lil_jay890 on September 30, 2015, 03:22:05 amJust delete the entire thread I have not problem with that...Waiting a moderator to do it since I have not the permission to do it .PS I have a copy for members that desperately want it for their records (@fuzzy ?)
Quote from: lil_jay890 on September 30, 2015, 03:22:05 amJust delete the entire thread
Just delete the entire thread
There is two kind of speech control . One from government , one from oneself . Expressing every single bit of your thinking and expect people should not judge you for that is not freedom of speech . Freedom of speech only prevents you from the government fallout , not from the public opinion . Being true doesn't mean you should to tell your friend in the desert that you want to eat him even though you really want to . Being true doesn't mean you should expect your friend to forgive you after justifying how reasonable for you to eat him . The true freedom of speech comes with prices , some in actual jail , more in the jail of the public's heart . If you do not wish to be punish for your speech in the court of public opinion , then you shouldn't even throw yourself there to begin with . It takes wisdom and thinking to start a controversial debate . It takes freedom of speech to protect and continue the debate . It takes more wisdom to end it when it brings more negative impact upon you and others . Not every thing is about logic . If my teacher looks like a pig , I tell him that , which is totally logical and reasonable . Then I would be screwed seriously even though I actually have a point . It's your freedom to express your own free will . It's also other people's freedom to give you hard time for that . It's also other people's freedom to inflict serious consequence upon you including a trial in public opinion and ruin things that you've worked so hard for and you end up paying more significant price than you expected . You shouldn't expect less because you live in a society . But if you're actually expecting less , then you haven't really prepared for it .
Quote from: puppies on September 30, 2015, 02:37:56 amhttps://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0I think BM is completely correct. I think production should be very harshly punished. I think sexualization of children is terrible, for the individual, and for society at large. I wouldn't look at it if it were legal. I also think that decriminalization is the best way to reduce the number of exploited children going forward.We can move this to random? I love it...so I don't want to see it deleted! This is important stuff! I am not sure why this is bad PR to have concerns over a single world governmental structure wanting to control the net (or am I really living in Bizzaro World these days and it IS unpopular??). All too often we sweep things like this under the rug these days...and as soon as something resembles people are afraid to touch it with a 10-foot pole. Sometimes what is right is not popular...head over to the EFF's Website to see the cases with real and wide-reaching implications they fight against on a daily basis and you will begin to understand what i'm talking about.This thread is gold and should not be harmed imho...
https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0I think BM is completely correct. I think production should be very harshly punished. I think sexualization of children is terrible, for the individual, and for society at large. I wouldn't look at it if it were legal. I also think that decriminalization is the best way to reduce the number of exploited children going forward.
@datasecuritynodeYou really really need to study a history of the Holy Inquisition before advocating taking power from individuals and giving it to righteous authorities. In power structures (power over others) it is often the perverts and psychopaths that rise to the top. I don't have a solution to offer as to how to stop child abuse, but I suggest the place to begin looking is to loving family structures. Wanted and loved children are not likely to be abused.Choose to live in a community where people know each other and shun anyone who exploits others, especially children. The "authorities" to whom you want to give the power to spy on the internet are the "authorities" who ripped native kids from their loving families and cultural settings and sent them to residential schools where a large percentage underwent sexual and physical abuse.
I hate to say it but this conversation is just bad PR.
Quote from: merockstar on September 29, 2015, 09:13:46 pmQuote from: bytemaster on September 29, 2015, 03:45:35 pmQuote from: liondani on September 29, 2015, 03:07:59 pmQuote from: bytemaster on September 29, 2015, 01:56:32 pm Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable. I can follow your thinking if we speak about cannabis etc. but this logic can definitely not apply here (I mean the conclusion can't be the same)....Can you explain why it doesn't apply?That logic can't apply because if already existing child porn were legal, the kids who were in it would be exploited in an ongoing manner, every time somebody watches it, it's an infringement on their rights.I would say real child porn should be illegal. Computer generated though? That could subsidize the market reducing incentive to produce while not legitimizing trade in content that already shouldn't have existed.If a child porn user looks at a child's picture and no one ever knows about it, then was anyone actually harmed... did it actually happen? Claiming the child continues to be harmed simply because some anonymous pervert *might* be looking at their photo is a bit of a stretch, especially because whether or not you attempt to "block it" the statement remains true. That same pervert may be looking at that same photo acquired over freenet and said child wouldn't know the difference.That said, I am sure that some adult children may volunteer their childhood photos to the cause and still other children may be dead along with their parents. In which case it should be trivial to voluntarily take down any photos at the request of the child in question which eliminates any "imagined" to the child. The end result is to reduce the value of child porn and thus the incentive to produce it. All of that said people are not always rational about these kinds of topics. Some people would gladly kill someone just for looking at child porn the wrong way. Others would gladly spend unimaginable amounts of OTHER PEOPLES in the hope of preventing even a single instance of child abuse. It is the pursuit of perfection that drives people to pay extreme prices to achieve meaningless gains.
Quote from: bytemaster on September 29, 2015, 03:45:35 pmQuote from: liondani on September 29, 2015, 03:07:59 pmQuote from: bytemaster on September 29, 2015, 01:56:32 pm Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable. I can follow your thinking if we speak about cannabis etc. but this logic can definitely not apply here (I mean the conclusion can't be the same)....Can you explain why it doesn't apply?That logic can't apply because if already existing child porn were legal, the kids who were in it would be exploited in an ongoing manner, every time somebody watches it, it's an infringement on their rights.I would say real child porn should be illegal. Computer generated though? That could subsidize the market reducing incentive to produce while not legitimizing trade in content that already shouldn't have existed.
Quote from: liondani on September 29, 2015, 03:07:59 pmQuote from: bytemaster on September 29, 2015, 01:56:32 pm Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable. I can follow your thinking if we speak about cannabis etc. but this logic can definitely not apply here (I mean the conclusion can't be the same)....Can you explain why it doesn't apply?
Quote from: bytemaster on September 29, 2015, 01:56:32 pm Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable. I can follow your thinking if we speak about cannabis etc. but this logic can definitely not apply here (I mean the conclusion can't be the same)....
Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable.
Yes, you should take as much precaution as possible when discussing such emotionally loaded issues, even when you're demonstrably right. Sadly, the vast majority of people are not utilitarian, and do not reason based on the maximization of the success of the end goals.I often rethink of this case of an Indian policeman that caused public outrage because he compared "the inability to enforce a law against illegal betting is like saying to women, ”because you can't prevent rape, you should enjoy it”." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/13/prevent-rape-enjoy-it-india-police-chiefIt was an analogy, probably a bad one, and for a bad motive. Regardless of that, he never said that he thought "women should enjoy rape", but was treated exactly like if he had, just because he put those two words one after the other. Most people can't stop and think.
If a child porn user looks at a child's picture and no one ever knows about it, then was anyone actually harmed... did it actually happen? Claiming the child continues to be harmed simply because some anonymous pervert *might* be looking at their photo is a bit of a stretch, especially because whether or not you attempt to "block it" the statement remains true. That same pervert may be looking at that same photo acquired over freenet and said child wouldn't know the difference.
That said, I am sure that some adult children may volunteer their childhood photos to the cause and still other children may be dead along with their parents. In which case it should be trivial to voluntarily take down any photos at the request of the child in question which eliminates any "imagined" to the child. The end result is to reduce the value of child porn and thus the incentive to produce it.
All of that said people are not always rational about these kinds of topics. Some people would gladly kill someone just for looking at child porn the wrong way. Others would gladly spend unimaginable amounts of OTHER PEOPLES in the hope of preventing even a single instance of child abuse. It is the pursuit of perfection that drives people to pay extreme prices to achieve meaningless gains.
99% of people are AFRAID of what would happen if they respond in love rather than violence and control.
So there are two issues: 1. what is the object best approach to minimize the harm to society caused by these issues2. what is the approach that most people will subjectively believe to be the bestAs a society only 1% have the time, critical thinking, and emotional maturity to recognize the "right" answer. This means that 99% will reject the "right" answer and instead opt for something else.If you want to get people to join the cause for freedom, you need to give them something to fear more than child porn, terrorism, and hate speech. It is sad to say, but you must manipulate people into taking the right actions for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, this is how the elite justify the propaganda machine. Many of the elite believe they are doing the "right" thing and thus feel morally justified in manipulating the masses to vote against their own best interest. So this leaves us in the tough spot of having to find reasons the average man can get behind for supporting free speech. QuoteFirst they came for the Child Pornography, and I did not speak out—Because I was not into child porn.Then they came for the Terrorists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Terrorist.Then they came for the Hate Speech, and I did not speak out—Because I did not hate.Then they came for me—and it was illegal to speak out for me.
First they came for the Child Pornography, and I did not speak out—Because I was not into child porn.Then they came for the Terrorists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Terrorist.Then they came for the Hate Speech, and I did not speak out—Because I did not hate.Then they came for me—and it was illegal to speak out for me.
Quote from: liondani on September 29, 2015, 03:07:59 pmQuote from: bytemaster on September 29, 2015, 01:56:32 pm Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable. I can follow your thinking if we speak about cannabis etc. but this logic can definitely not apply here (I mean the conclusion can't be the same)....Let's ask Jared.
Some things can not be eliminated, but can be avoided as far as possible.。It's too early to talk about it.
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on September 29, 2015, 05:20:35 amHow is child porn handled in a decentralized DNS world? How are terrorists handled? Hate groups? I only ask this because these are the obvious touch points for why they talk about controlling the internet. So with the alternative.. how do we handle these things better? How does a decentralized DNS maintain the internet as a tool and not become weaponized?Terrorists are the result of government oppression, eliminate the government interference and you eliminate the terrorism. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack. Child porn is like money laundering, moving money isn't the crime, it is stealing it in the first place. In other words, stop kidnapping and child abuse which happen outside the internet and you stop the real crimes. If you want to remove the ECONOMIC incentive to generate NEW child porn, then you should make existing child porn freely available to undercut the market. I do not like child porn, but I hate state violence more. I do not like drugs, but am smart enough to know that making them illegal only INCREASES the market price of drugs and thus incentive the market to produce. Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable. Hater's going to hate. Those that hate the hate groups and wish to deny them free speech are a bigger threat than the hate groups themselves. You fight hate groups with love, not with violence which only fuels their hate. At the end of the day the "solutions" magnify the "problems" they try to solve by initiating force, restricting supply, preventing the free market from working, and increasing the profit for those who do the real crimes. You do not FIX social issues with violence, you just introduce more problems. The challenge is that 99% of people feel compelled to violently resist and control other people. 99% of people are AFRAID of what would happen if they respond in love rather than violence and control. If there is to be FILTERING of internet content it should be up to individual PRIVATE businesses to decide, not mandated via state violence. Think something like parental controls. Market forces will tend to relegate those kinds of websites to dark corners where normal people never have to look at them.
How is child porn handled in a decentralized DNS world? How are terrorists handled? Hate groups? I only ask this because these are the obvious touch points for why they talk about controlling the internet. So with the alternative.. how do we handle these things better? How does a decentralized DNS maintain the internet as a tool and not become weaponized?
I don't think that's the right question. Might as well ask how we make sure knives are only used for good and not evil. These things are just tools. You have to take the good with the bad. It's the person that weelds the tool and their intent that impact the world for the better or the worse.
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on September 29, 2015, 05:20:35 amHow is child porn handled in a decentralized DNS world? How are terrorists handled? Hate groups? I only ask this because these are the obvious touch points for why they talk about controlling the internet. So with the alternative.. how do we handle these things better? How does a decentralized DNS maintain the internet as a tool and not become weaponized?I don't think that's the right question. Might as well ask how we make sure knives are only used for good and not evil. These things are just tools. You have to take the good with the bad. It's the person that weelds the tool and their intent that impact the world for the better or the worse.
All the more reason why political security needs to be figured out.