It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does yahoo allow pedophilia ?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Automated would not work. People would just use room names with special lettering and stuff like that. I am starting an organization that is going to reduce the number of pedophiles who attempt to target young girls on Yahoo. With my expertise of Yahoo, I think I can make a real impact. If anyone wants more information, you can send me a u2u.




posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
*preemptive post*


Please don't post links to pedophile type chat rooms.


Would such links be allowed on RATS?
This IS a research site in the end, and people also get away with posting "rotten-like" pictures of exploded human beings.

On subject:

Okay let's have some healthy hardcore discussion in here.
Let's presume pedophiles are born as pedophiles, in other words they can not help that they are pedophiles.
Wouldn't it -in this case- be best for everyone if they would be allowed to have their (dirty and wrong to us) chatrooms and websites as long as they leave little children alone?

I know that's a very un-american idea, but just something to consider.

[edit on 26-4-2005 by Jakko]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   
yeah i've seen userrooms back in the day with some pretty sick titles...

but i always thought it was probably a room full of agents just waiting for some disgustoid waste of human life to creep in and actually try something... then say enjoy prison hard ass.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

Wouldn't it -in this case- be best for everyone if they would be allowed to have their (dirty and wrong to us) chatrooms and websites as long as they leave little children alone?


The problem with this theory is that if a "dormant" pedophile (ie. one who has never acted upon his unnatural desires) is exposed to material which encourages his lusts and validates this concept as something which is somewhat acceptable, then the chances that he will act out on his desire increase, placing more children in the way of risk. It only takes the desire or urge to do this to be classified as an actual pedophile, even if they never commit the action.

further reading



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Fair enough, but I think there are also enough counter theories about how someone who is denied all ways of having sexual satisfaction "explodes" and resorts to illegal ways after a while.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Born pervert?

Maybe- but so what?

People have the capacity to learn. A pervert can learn to not openly be perverted. Every person that preys on children deserves prison, not some psych-ward but prison.

I wonder how many 'agents' that lurk in those rooms are really pervs themselves. I also wonder how often the agent triggers someone else to act that otherwise wouldn't have.

Yahoo will be dragged into court one of these days. If the jury deems it so then Yahoo may find out about 'corporate responsibility' the hard way.

external image



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Born pervert?

Maybe- but so what?

People have the capacity to learn. A pervert can learn to not openly be perverted. Every person that preys on children deserves prison, not some psych-ward but prison.
external image


Noone has the capacity to change what they are attracted to, straight people can't make themselves turn gay and the other way around.
What if it's the same for pedophiles? What if they can't help it...

Prison won't help them, neither will a psych-ward.
The goal for such people should be leading an as normal as possible life, but without damaging children.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
The goal for such people should be leading an as normal as possible life, but without damaging children.


And child pornography itself damages children. Any action which promotes or perserves the product of the abuse is a step further in the direction of encouraging the pornographer and is one more violation of the child.

If any "unusual" tendencies are validated and encouraged, then the chances of the person acting out on those tendencies is increased. Why do you think there has been such an increase in people coming out as openly gay over the last couple of decades? It is clearly because homosexuality has become more socially acceptable than it once was. There is more discussion about it and validation of it now than there ever has been before, in the U.S. at least.

Is this where you want pedophilia to head, Jakko? Into the light of day as a socially acceptable "kink"?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Of course not.
There is one big difference between the effects of being born gay and being born pedophile, giving in to your gay desires will not harm the world around you, where pedophiles can ruin the entire life of kids if they give in to their desires.

That's also the big problem here, with gay people there is really no problem because 2 gay people who want a relationship will not harm anything or anyone in doing so, just like in a straight relationship.
Of course there will always be the hysterical idiots that say they are harmed by just seeing gay people kiss, but if we exclude that group of people from our discussion, there is nothing wrong with gay relationships.

So what ways could be handed to pedophiles in order to deal with their unwanted "state" without harming anyone?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   

So what ways could be handed to pedophiles in order to deal with their unwanted "state" without harming anyone?


hmm....I could think of a few, but shall we start with inpatient psychiatric counseling, chemical castration, electro-shock therapy....I could go on but it would start to get gruesome...



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Wondering why the original thread starter has gone a bit quiet.

maybe not the debate he was hoping for?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by kinglizard
*preemptive post*


Please don't post links to pedophile type chat rooms.


Would such links be allowed on RATS?
This IS a research site in the end, and people also get away with posting "rotten-like" pictures of exploded human beings.

On subject:

Okay let's have some healthy hardcore discussion in here.
Let's presume pedophiles are born as pedophiles, in other words they can not help that they are pedophiles.
Wouldn't it -in this case- be best for everyone if they would be allowed to have their (dirty and wrong to us) chatrooms and websites as long as they leave little children alone?

I know that's a very un-american idea, but just something to consider.

[edit on 26-4-2005 by Jakko]
Why the # would you want links to this #? Rgus us a research message board, is it? So are you really going to research this for the geater good? I am concerned abouit the reasons you want these links so much?

The last part of your post is truley idiotic and abhorrent. You really think such pictures should be legally traded? Do you think the children in these pictures are acting in their own free will, you pillock?

# this, I am too angry to actually compose a good post here so I will leave it.


One last thing, it is pretty stupid of you lot to make a thread using the words you have been doing, the thread I have quoted above by the daft Dutch guy even has the word "h a r d c o r e" in his post! What do you think happens when some disgusting monster gets on his keeyboard and get's a search going using words in this thread? Well, of course the first page he will come to will be this one. Great advertisement for out community! Luckily, most of the posters in this thread are too dumb to spell "p&edo£hi*ia" properly.


EDIT: Let me just add, I am quite the opposite to the knee jerk, Daily Mail reading reactionary that some of you in this post seem to be but I am still not stupid enough to not understand the danger of this thread and the childlike thoughts inside it.

[edit on 26-4-2005 by triplesod]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by triplesod
Why the # would you want links to this #? Rgus us a research message board, is it? So are you really going to research this for the geater good? I am concerned abouit the reasons you want these links so much?


Don't be. We have links to every other disgusting subject, and now all of a sudden when this is being discussed links are taboo?
As if we can't find it ourselves.


The last part of your post is truley idiotic and abhorrent. You really think such pictures should be legally traded? Do you think the children in these pictures are acting in their own free will, you pillock?


I have no idea what you just called me, but I think a pillock is not something good right?
Anyways, I was just trying to create a discussion. I didn't say it was okay for them to trade pictures, allthough trading pictures is a whole lot better than raping children.
I don't want them to trade pictures, I want them to be able to talk to eachother about the problem they have, allthough it would be naiv to think a part of them is not as oversexed as the average human being, leading to whatever disgusting act.


# this, I am too angry to actually compose a good post here so I will leave it.


Had a little too much coffee or something?




One last thing, it is pretty stupid of you lot to make a thread using the words you have been doing, the thread I have quoted above by the daft Dutch guy even has the word "h a r d c o r e" in his post! What do you think happens when some disgusting monster gets on his keeyboard and get's a search going using words in this thread? Well, of course the first page he will come to will be this one. Great advertisement for out community! Luckily, most of the posters in this thread are too dumb to spell "p&edo£hi*ia" properly.


You're being hysterical.
If we want to talk about hardcore and pedophiles then we should be able to use those words without cencorship.
When those "disgusting monsters" do find ATS and search, all they will find is a thread in which everyone calls them a "disgusting monster", now let's hope it will make them want to commit suicide eh?




EDIT: Let me just add, I am quite the opposite to the knee jerk, Daily Mail reading reactionary that some of you in this post seem to be but I am still not stupid enough to not understand the danger of this thread and the childlike thoughts inside it.

[edit on 26-4-2005 by triplesod]


Danger of this thread?
Once again you are being hysterical, just give your opinion in a normal way next time, don't be a hypocrit.
You are lucky you weren't born as a pedophile, or we would be calling you a disgusting monster.
Now tell me, would you have comitted suicide if you would have been born as a pedophile?
Just wondering.

[edit on 26-4-2005 by Jakko]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   
child pornography is the one great dark side to the internet. For years I have been troubled by the relative ease ofavailability of porn and child porn. Worse still are the unsolicited pop ups from porn sites that are, somehow, linked to gambling sites, gaming sites and hacker sites. Surely they can stamp out this evil. If the RIAA can track down music downloaders, the porn watchdogs can track down pedophile porn on the net and toss these sickos in jail. And, while I'm on my soapbox, why can't they simply limit ALL porn sites to .xxx suffixes instead of .coms. This one change alone could certainly go a long way towards preventing unwanted porn.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Don't be. We have links to every other disgusting subject, and now all of a sudden when this is being discussed links are taboo?
As if we can't find it ourselves.


I do not agree in any taboo but like you said, if you really find it neccessary you can find it yourself. This is not the place to be adding these sorts of links, it is dangerous to the site and to the poster who adds the link.


I have no idea what you just called me, but I think a pillock is not something good right?
Anyways, I was just trying to create a discussion. I didn't say it was okay for them to trade pictures, allthough trading pictures is a whole lot better than raping children.
I don't want them to trade pictures, I want them to be able to talk to eachother about the problem they have, allthough it would be naiv to think a part of them is not as oversexed as the average human being, leading to whatever disgusting act.


Firstly, apologies for calling you a pillock. A pillock, in it's literal form means "dead testical", it is kind of a silly term to throw at someone, more daft than derogatory.
Secondly. Do you not understand that these chioldren in these pictureas are actually victims of rape? The proof is right there in the picture. You say that it is better for someone to look at these pics than actually put it into practice but there is honestly not too much to seperate them, they are still backing the rape of the child but without actually getting their hands dirty themselves as I said, the child in the pics are in a situation which is not consentual and is slowly destroying their lives and possibly causing physical harm. These children will carry on being raped on camera/video if there are going to be people willing to pay to look at it, basic supply and demand, therefor the person who is purchasing and getting their kicks from these pics are just as guilty and in fault as they would if they actually did the things themselves. About being able to discuss these things with other like-minded people, you could be onto something here, it would be a very tricky issue. The two main worries here are the psychology of these people, in this I mean, are they all predatory sexual beats? Or could they keep their feelings only in their mind and in words? Would parterships be made on these forums leading to frightening scenarios, possibly similar to what has happened recently in La Loire Valley. The other worry would be the general publics reaction. With these paedophiles being more visible on these boards, they could be more easily found and you may find reactionary mobs hunting them down, similarly to what happened in Britain after the Sara Payne murder, it would be hard to guerentee their safty, even if these paedophiles would never dream of raping and hurting someone you are going to get a huge part of the population simply not believing them and morbidly looking for trouble and excuses to attack.



Had a little too much coffee or something?

Again, apologies




You're being hysterical.
If we want to talk about hardcore and pedophiles then we should be able to use those words without cencorship.


I do not think I was being hysterical at all, I just think it is dangerous for this community to come top on search engines when people are looking for indecent images of children. Can you not understand that? And it has nothing to do with censorship, I would never advocate censorship, it is only a case of using some intelligence when posting.


When those "disgusting monsters" do find ATS and search, all they will find is a thread in which everyone calls them a "disgusting monster", now let's hope it will make them want to commit suicide eh?


Ohh the irony! So, I was hysterical was I?
It seems you are questioning the use of "disgusting monsters" in my post. Fair enough, although, do you not see people who trade or buy images of children being forced to do things against their will disgusting? Do you not think actively searching for images of kids being raped is monsterous? I do, weird eh? Do you feel so lightly about the thought of women or men being raped on camera for the benefit of viewers, too?







Danger of this thread?
Once again you are being hysterical, just give your opinion in a normal way next time, don't be a hypocrit.



Now you are giving me a personality which goes against what I explained in my previous post but fits me into a particular image for the benefit of your argument, aren't you mate?
I was being a hypocrite? Really? I hadn't noticed, explain eh?


You are lucky you weren't born as a pedophile, or we would be calling you a disgusting monster.
Now tell me, would you have comitted suicide if you would have been born as a pedophile?
Just wondering.


If I had been born a paedophile (maybe I am lucky I wasn't but I am definately very happy and relieved I wasn't) and I had hurt a child, if I had funded the continuel sorrow of a child by the hands of another, if I had been involved in anyway with the supply and demand of a child or children being molested or raped or in anyway had their natural lives and personalities taken away from them for the sexuel gratification of others then you would only be human to do so and call me a lot more too and also act in the harshest possible way the law can allow (European laws).
If I had been born a paedophile and had paedophilic feelings without them ever being used on someone, avoiding images or anything that would lead back to a childs torturous time then I would of course not be a monster and if you had read my post without wanting to pigeon-hole me then you would have understood this is my stance on paedophilia.


So in conclusion, yes, I think people who prey on children and release their passions on them, are evil. Do you not agree?
I think paedophiles who would never hurt a child or have anything to do with anything or anyone who would, are in need of help from somewhere but would todays society ever accept them some asylum?


I get the feeling you are trying to tell me that paedophiles are just "missunderstood" or something. I am still quite confused with your blase attitude here. I know you are trying to out-liberal me and I am basically as liberal as they come but don't be liberal for liberalism's sake.

Just one question for you. A man rapes a woman, this causes her physical harm, luckily enough she is old enough to have already grown her own personality but this still ruins her life to an extent. What are your feelings about the perpetrator in this story>? Evil animal or missunderstood individuel who should be patted on the head and treated nicely?


I know you weren't condoning sharing images (only after reading this last post of yours though) but at the same time you don't really seem to be condemning it. Please don't try to turn the discussion around to talk about harmless inactive paedophiles because that isn't at all what was being discussed.


EDIT: Edited to sort out quotes.

[edit on 26-4-2005 by triplesod]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
And, while I'm on my soapbox, why can't they simply limit ALL porn sites to .xxx suffixes instead of .coms. This one change alone could certainly go a long way towards preventing unwanted porn.


You know I don't even know if it's possible at this point, but that's one hell of an idea none the less. That would definitely make things easier when trying to restrict these sites from children.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by triplesod
Luckily, most of the posters in this thread are too dumb to spell "p&edo£hi*ia" properlly.


I take personal offense at this comment.

You may check the spelling of this word here:

pedophilia

or here:

paedophilia.

You will find that yours is the less universally accepted, or "British" spelling of this word.

Unfortunately, you were either too drunk or too "dumb" yourself to spell many of the other words in your long-winded little rants properly, but I did manage to gather that you and I seem to be basically in agreement on the subject of the transmission of child pornography.

How sad then that you had to be so obnoxious in the presentation of your own thoughts on the matter that I really did wish I could find some other point on which to disagree with you.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roadscholar
. . . you had to be so obnoxious in the presentation of your own thoughts on the matter that I really did wish I could find some other point on which to disagree with you.

I know, I felt the same way


Arrogance is such a bitter pill. The thoughts were there, I had to blink to get into them. But, right is right.

This is not the kind of subject that needs to be 'discussed' save for how to root it and its cancerous reach from existence.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by triplesod
I do not agree in any taboo but like you said, if you really find it neccessary you can find it yourself. This is not the place to be adding these sorts of links, it is dangerous to the site and to the poster who adds the link.


Yes that is true, the only reason I would want to see those links is to find out what exactly we are talking about. Do they really trade pics? What kind of pics? Just naked children or pictures with sexual acts in them, etc. Such answers matter a lot to "how bad" it really is.
But indeed, having such links on ATS would not be allowed probably.



About being able to discuss these things with other like-minded people, you could be onto something here, it would be a very tricky issue. The two main worries here are the psychology of these people, in this I mean, are they all predatory sexual beats? Or could they keep their feelings only in their mind and in words?


I think the "group" of pedophiles is really no different from the "group" of straight people. Some of them are rapists, some of them are the kindest persons you will ever meet that wouldn't hurt a fly.


Would parterships be made on these forums leading to frightening scenarios, possibly similar to what has happened recently in La Loire Valley. The other worry would be the general publics reaction. With these paedophiles being more visible on these boards, they could be more easily found and you may find reactionary mobs hunting them down, similarly to what happened in Britain after the Sara Payne murder, it would be hard to guerentee their safty, even if these paedophiles would never dream of raping and hurting someone you are going to get a huge part of the population simply not believing them and morbidly looking for trouble and excuses to attack.


Okay I misunderstood you, from your last post I got the idea your stance on pedophiles was far more agressive then it really is, which is why I called you a hypocrit. The people who hunt down and kill pedophiles are hypocrits because they "think" they are better than pedophiles when they may very well be worse.




I do not think I was being hysterical at all, I just think it is dangerous for this community to come top on search engines when people are looking for indecent images of children. Can you not understand that? And it has nothing to do with censorship, I would never advocate censorship, it is only a case of using some intelligence when posting.


Yep, but not being able to use certain words just to prevent people will ever find ATS when they are looking for pictures just goes too far. We can't have any discussion like that.
So what if they find ATS when they try to find pics? They will not find any here.



Ohh the irony! So, I was hysterical was I?
It seems you are questioning the use of "disgusting monsters" in my post. Fair enough, although, do you not see people who trade or buy images of children being forced to do things against their will disgusting? Do you not think actively searching for images of kids being raped is monsterous? I do, weird eh? Do you feel so lightly about the thought of women or men being raped on camera for the benefit of viewers, too?


Well I thought you were calling ALL pedophiles "disgusting monsters" and not just the ones that trade the pictures. which would have made no sense.








If I had been born a paedophile (maybe I am lucky I wasn't but I am definately very happy and relieved I wasn't) and I had hurt a child, if I had funded the continuel sorrow of a child by the hands of another, if I had been involved in anyway with the supply and demand of a child or children being molested or raped or in anyway had their natural lives and personalities taken away from them for the sexuel gratification of others then you would only be human to do so and call me a lot more too and also act in the harshest possible way the law can allow (European laws).
If I had been born a paedophile and had paedophilic feelings without them ever being used on someone, avoiding images or anything that would lead back to a childs torturous time then I would of course not be a monster and if you had read my post without wanting to pigeon-hole me then you would have understood this is my stance on paedophilia.


I really didn't. Your post was quite harsh.
But I think we have the same opinion about the subject in the end.



Just one question for you. A man rapes a woman, this causes her physical harm, luckily enough she is old enough to have already grown her own personality but this still ruins her life to an extent. What are your feelings about the perpetrator in this story>? Evil animal or missunderstood individuel who should be patted on the head and treated nicely?


Well even such individuals could be "understood" and their actions "explained" (they have too many hormones making them very sexually oriented) but of course such people in the end made the choice of raping someone so should be seen as evil.
They should be locked away of course.

In the end I think we agree fully, there is not much to disagree about this subject I think, besides disagreeing with the mobs that hunt down and kill pedophiles.

I think this world treats pedophiles wrong, especially the US.
Many many people think a pedophile is someone who "tries to rape children" instead of someone who is born with a deviant sexual orientation.
They should get help, instead of mobs hunting them down. (the passive ones)



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roadscholar

Originally posted by triplesod
Luckily, most of the posters in this thread are too dumb to spell "p&edo£hi*ia" properlly.


I take personal offense at this comment.

You may check the spelling of this word here:

pedophilia

or here:

paedophilia.

You will find that yours is the less universally accepted, or "British" spelling of this word.

Unfortunately, you were either too drunk or too "dumb" yourself to spell many of the other words in your long-winded little rants properly, but I did manage to gather that you and I seem to be basically in agreement on the subject of the transmission of child pornography.

How sad then that you had to be so obnoxious in the presentation of your own thoughts on the matter that I really did wish I could find some other point on which to disagree with you.


Yep, I know. Apologies for that, I was just in a bad mood and trying to be nasty



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join