The Internet

[KrayZ33]

Am I saying Hitler had the right to want racial purity like pedos have the right to lust for children? Yes I am. That's called Freedom of Thought. They also have to right to vocalise this. It's called Freedom of Expression.

just skipping through the walls of texts, but whenever I read BS like this it makes me angry, just for your information, freedom of speech/expression has limitations, you can't go around and say whatever you want, you can *think* whatever you like, but you arn't always allowed (by law) to express it.

[shinta|hikari]

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights has a few things most Western countries agree that each individual human is entitled to simply for existing and being a human being. It is largely put in place to prevent oppression of individuals and groups - even minorities.

Amongst those things are Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Opinion. To prosecute someone for having thoughts about child sex violates these rights.

Article #9 states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

That said, the rights of one individual will at times conflict with those of another. [Example: Freedom of Speech (threats) vs Freedom from Fear (to not feel threatenned).]

So what justification does the law have to prosecute, punish or even execute individuals? What makes a reason arbitrary and what makes it justifiable?

Do not dismiss the crimes: murder, rape and theft as "obvious" without thinking. They are crimes because such acts cause significant, proven harm to victims.

If you had read through the walls of text, you would've read the above.

[KrayZ33]

Text agrees with what I just said...? What are you getting at?

If he himself says and understands

Freedom from Fear (to not feel threatenned).]

he might as well not say

Am I saying Hitler had the right to want racial purity like pedos have the right to lust for children? .... They also have to right to vocalise this.

shortly after, right?

[shinta|hikari]

It was written (a few posts before your quote) by the same person you quoted.

My point is you shouldn't quote stuff without understanding the context.

[KrayZ33]

It's not out of context, he himself ignored the rule he pointed out earlier with that sentence.

[shinta|hikari]

He wrote that sentence while acknowleding that rule. He was simplifying in the instance you quoted to make it easier to understand the basic concept. You can ask him directly if you doubt me.

How can you even have an opinion on what he meant if you haven't read the walls of text?

[KrayZ33]

He said it's *their* (which includes Hitler's thoughts on blood purity) right to vocalise it, but it's not... this is not about opinions or anything. I just disagree with the example given by him.

It's a threat to public order, and thus doesn't simply fall under freedom of expression

[shinta|hikari]

Are you sure it's not their right? As long as it does not fall into hate speech or obscenity, I think you can't get arrested for saying "I think children are sexy." or "I wish there were only white people around."

People would judge the hell out of you, though.

[KrayZ33]

For that alone? (Probably) No, but you could get a fine if there are witnesses.
If it's more than just that, it might fall under hate speech/racism.. which will get you up to 5 years in Germany

However, when he puts "pedos", as a group, together with Hitler, then I assume a movement/political group. And that is a more "serious" matter. Take the dutch group "Martijn" for example.

[shinta|hikari]

What I'm saying (from the very beginning) is that you're reading too much into it. The examples were very borderline, but they were like that for a reason. By choosing the "worst" examples, the value of the Freedom is better validated. The examples weren't meant to promote either example.

[Edort4]

it might fall under hate speech/racism.. which will get you up to 5 years in Germany.

Holy shit I thought things were going badly here but it seems that we are only getting the "best" from our UE partners and catching up to date. People are being prosecuted on Twitter for even the stupidest of things under the obscure (and totally dictatorial) figure of hate crimes.

In the case of Germany with the jews and hate crimes is clear overcompensation from a physcological point of view but lately that figure of "hate crimes" is so wide that even keeping silence, and sometimes plausible deniability, fall into that category if prosecutors (in compliance with judges and politicians) want it to. And we dont talk about some fine or lesser offenses. As you said you can go to jail for 5 years (more than 50% of rape sentences or 100% of white collar crimes) under that "misty" definition of "hate crime" or "incitement to hate".

Its getting pretty scary all this bullshit. People fear that incitement to hate could create some new kinds of dictatorships or nazi movements that could take our freedoms away. Man they are already here. They are called socialdemocrat crony-capitalistic states. People reads Orwell under the fear that it may become true. They are already here for godsake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police

[Buffalobiian]

@Krayz33: as Shinta says, you can vocalise without threatenning, which is what I'm getting at. Someone can tell me that they hate me and want me removed without myself feeling physically threatened.

[Buffalobiian]

Average Faces of Korean Chinese and Japanese Celebrities



A computer in Korea averaged the faces of all the famous celebrities in each country to show the most 'ideal' face.

In Korea, the female celebrity is pale in complexion, innocent looking and looks like she has a cold personality. The Chinese celebrity has well defined features and an alluring look whereas the Japanese celebrity has a cute, feminine and soft look.


The Korean male looks like an average good looking man, whereas the Chinese celebrity has well defined features and is very handsome and striking. The Japanese male looks very masculine and 'macho'. - Korean Herald

For all the "comparisons" out there, this one seems pretty accurate (the images, not necessarily the verbal descriptions).

Who knows if this is actually true, but even if it is it shows celebrities only anyway (the people we want to see on screen), not population average in any way.. so it still doesn't answer the real question people tend to ask (can you tell from just looking?)

[Edort4]

http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

This one is amazing. I could swear I have read some of those in forums and magazines. The future is in ctrl+c/ctrl+v.

[MFauli]

I love Trump so much

http://i.imgur.com/ZVZS9aj.gif

[Edort4]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/nintend...centre-7464276

I was wondering what ppl would think about this, and the essay that caused the outrage, here seen how we have some ecchi and hentai lovers. Not judging at all.

Talking with a judge/lawyer friend he admited that if he had to tell the truth having images shouldnt be a crime by itself (it would need more emphasys on how the material got obtained) even though he would hate to judge in that way and let someone owning that kind of content free.

He said that it would become a case of public judging. That law would fail itself to satisfy the public opinion.

[shinta|hikari]

I have not read the actual essay, but it matters little because my opinion on the matter has long since been established.

My stance is generally possession of 2D should be legal, while real children porn should be illegal, only because those who produce it tend to make money off those who obtain those materials, creating demand. That said, I think the penalty for mere possession should be much lighter than actual production, something like a fine (definitely not jail time or openly labeling them as deviants to be burned at the social media stake). The idea is to discourage people from supporting that industry, but let's face it. Illegal or not, people who WILL venture out and risk themselves to get this content WILL get this content.

[Buffalobiian]

He said that it would become a case of public judging. That law would fail itself to satisfy the public opinion.

What does that last sentence mean?

The argument always boils down to "We don't have good evidence that owning pictures causes harm, but better safe than sorry and no one wants to change the status quo just for the sake of principle."

Getting fired for publishing a paper like that is stupid, but companies would do it anyway if they fear she'll eat away at their profits and image. Again - fuck principles.

-----------------------

On a similar note, I've recently learned that there are laws in place to prosecute people who venture abroad to engage in child sexual tourism, even if they don't break any local laws in doing so. That's overstepping some grounds in my book. Then again, there's such things as "crimes against humanity" by the international community. I'm not sure where I stand amongst all this. It'll depend on the technicalities and the framework that international organisations use to judge people.

-----------------------


edit: oh, and there was this clip floating around a few weeks back:



I don't know what all the other deleted responses were, but I got tired of the arguments here. Just call the cops and get it over with - like how you deal with any other activity you think is illegal. No harm's being done such that you can't wait 10 minutes for their arrival.

[shinta|hikari]

For the record, since it was so obvious I did not mention it in my previous post, I definitely don't think anyone should get fired for publishing a paper.

Interesting thing about that video is, that child looked like she was sad as hell. I wonder how the people would react if she was all happy and actively answered them that she wanted to get married.

I asked a similar question in the Gate thread, but it seems that laws do exist to prosecute people who do illegal things in their home country in a country where it is legal. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I actually do believe some laws are draconian and need to be changed, so I can't support letting people abuse laws in foreign countries. I look at it less from a legal technicality standpoint but from an overall utilitarian perspective.

[Edort4]

What does that last sentence mean?

Im not a lawyer so I cant say I understood what he meant correctly. I think that what he was trying to say is that lawmakers gave up to public opinion in this matter making it illegal to have such content no matter what.

So to say: you have it you are guilty, no extenuating factors. From what he tried to explain thats not how justice (law) is suppossed to act in its spirit. Penal code and jail are the last option and something so "vague" has just having material isnt supposed to be meet with the last option right off the bat.

Actually the last law modification left it completely open here to be guilty of having that kind of pictures even if its drawings, if they are realistic. This opened a door for 2D and 3D art to be crime. So far no1 has crossed that door but it seems the foudantions were planted and he was quite pissed about it.

I liked Shinta's stand. Resonates quite a lot with me. But this kind of matter really makes me tilt. I get contradictory feelings and ideas.