Worlds largest paedophile ring discovered

[Aberdeenloon]

tinman0 said:

Frankeh said:

It's like me swapping a picture of Jessica alba for a picture you have of Natalie Portman.. Neither of us took the picture, know Natalie Portman or the photographer.

We're certainly not the reason the photographers originally took the picture, either.

Hope that helps.

Yes 'you' are the reason the photographer took the picture.

Although the face value of the two pictures may be equal, they still have a value. If they were worthless, you would dis-guard them. But you don't. You trade them.

Which leads to the next question, what happens when you have seen all the cards? Someone steps in and produces a new card, which you in turn trade with that person who created them. Had that person not had 'you' to trade with, they may not produce the next picture. There is a constant supply of images that is fueled by users.

Just because your friend did not produce the material, does not excuse his actions.

And yes, it does need to be in bold because you don't seem to get it.

This ^^^. 100% absolutely, totally this.

[Aberdeenloon]

Brighton Derly said:

Aberdeenloon said:

Frankeh said:

nellyleelephant said:

Has this been done before then?
Don't see how you can treat urges, but I'm probably wrong.
Does that imply that any sexual orientation can be modified?

Read up on chemical castration (Or surgical castration). It's not nice, but it seems to do the job.

Edit:Only one way. I'm sure there's many other methods but the above is the most extreme.

Physical castration would get my vote.

With a baseball bat.

Bear trap, shirley.

[Frankeh]

tinman0 said:

Which leads to the next question, what happens when you have seen all the cards? Someone steps in and produces a new card, which you in turn trade with that person who created them. Had that person not had 'you' to trade with, they may not produce the next picture. There is a constant supply of images that is fueled by users.

I'm pretty sure that's explained in my original post. Have a re read.
Paedophiles are parasites to child abusers. They just latch on and live off them, but they don't have an effect either way.
The host does what it's going to do regardless of the parasites wishes.

tinman0 said:

Just because your friend did not produce the material, does not excuse his actions.

This, we can agree on.
It is however a lesser crime than it's made out to be, imo.

[Aberdeenloon]

Frankeh said:

So, lets put bets on how long it takes to be accused of being a paedo.. I'm thinking 3 more pages before all logical debate falls to st.

Frankeh said:

It is however a lesser crime than it's made out to be, imo.

I think your thoughts were pretty accurate Frankeh, I am now seriously beginning to wonder whether perhaps you like "a wee look" because in your eyes there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Eric Mc]

I don't think he is implying that at all.

Looking is wrong.

Doing is wrong.

But are they EQUALLY wrong?

[Alfa numeric]

Frankeh said:

Paedophiles are parasites to child abusers. They just latch on and live off them, but they don't have an effect either way.
The host does what it's going to do regardless of the parasites wishes.

That doesn't make it right though.

Frankeh said:

It is however a lesser crime than it's made out to be, imo.

I think you might be alone on that one. You friend recognises that his feelings are wrong yet still operates on the periphery. In some respects he has my sympathy but by acting the way he does he deserves everything he gets if/when he gets caught.

I'd compare him to a low level heroin dealer. He may not produce the stuff he sells but he's helping distribute it and aiding in the destruction of lives. Although unilke heroin, it's not the users life that is the one that's ruined.

[Aberdeenloon]

Eric Mc said:

I don't think he is implying that at all.

Looking is wrong.

Doing is wrong.

But are they EQUALLY wrong?

I think tinman0 nailed it when he said:

tinman0 said:

Yes 'you' are the reason the photographer took the picture.

Although the face value of the two pictures may be equal, they still have a value. If they were worthless, you would dis-guard them. But you don't. You trade them.

Which leads to the next question, what happens when you have seen all the cards? Someone steps in and produces a new card, which you in turn trade with that person who created them. Had that person not had 'you' to trade with, they may not produce the next picture. There is a constant supply of images that is fueled by users.

Just because your friend did not produce the material, does not excuse his actions.

And yes, it does need to be in bold because you don't seem to get it.

[gtdc]

Frankeh said:

gtdc said:

Surely if he's looking at/swapping/helping anyone else see these pictures then he's part of the machine and is as guilty as the people who abuse the children by taking the pictures. Not being the one to actually lay a finger on a child doesn't gift him any layer of detachment from the abuse.

I'm not an expert on this but I believe that because he doesn't produce any 'original material' then all he is doing is swapping leaked images with people who have other leaked images.

It's like me swapping a picture of Jessica alba for a picture you have of Natalie Portman.. Neither of us took the picture, know Natalie Portman or the photographer.

We're certainly not the reason the photographers originally took the picture, either.

Hope that helps.

That doesn't make it any clearer. He's spreading the "original material" therefore he's contributing to the paedomachine. doesn't matter whether he took the photo, touched the child, paid for it, got it free - he's still in the "transaction".

You really can't compare it to us swapping a picture of Hollywood slebs. They're grown-up, willing participants in the fame game and their enduring slebness depends on being papped and spead all over the web.

[CampDavid]

Aberdeenloon said:

Frankeh said:

So, lets put bets on how long it takes to be accused of being a paedo.. I'm thinking 3 more pages before all logical debate falls to st.

Frankeh said:

It is however a lesser crime than it's made out to be, imo.

I think your thoughts were pretty accurate Frankeh, I am now seriously beginning to wonder whether perhaps you like "a wee look" because in your eyes there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I don't agree with some of Frankeh's views, however that post is by far and away the post pathetic thing I've read on this forum. It proves that you can't have any form of intelligent debate without throwing unsubstantiated insults around. He's put forward some decent points, you're throwing about sensationalist Daily Mail bks then fairly grievous insults.

[gtdc]

Frankeh said:

Paedophiles are parasites to child abusers. They just latch on and live off them, but they don't have an effect either way.
The host does what it's going to do regardless of the parasites wishes.

Your friend has sold you a dummy there. The market exists for kid pictures and people do the pictures for that market. Some pictures are taken as a byproduct or record of child abuse BUT some pictures are taken specifically to fuel the market with the abuse going on specifically to get the shots.

[tinman0]

Eric Mc said:

But are they EQUALLY wrong?

Ah fk it. You live in this cesspit of a country that debates how innocent or guilty a self confessed pedophile who looks at dodgy material is.

[Aberdeenloon]

CampDavid said:

I don't agree with some of Frankeh's views, however that post is by far and away the post pathetic thing I've read on this forum. It proves that you can't have any form of intelligent debate without throwing unsubstantiated insults around. He's put forward some decent points, you're throwing about sensationalist Daily Mail bks then fairly grievous insults.

Sensationalist bks? The woman was photographing kids for a paedophile ring and has since been convicted!

Frankeh is defending a person's right to view child porn "because he didn't take the pictures/make the video" - you think that is a decent point?

[Frankeh]

Aberdeenloon said:

Frankeh said:

So, lets put bets on how long it takes to be accused of being a paedo.. I'm thinking 3 more pages before all logical debate falls to st.

Frankeh said:

It is however a lesser crime than it's made out to be, imo.

I think your thoughts were pretty accurate Frankeh, I am now seriously beginning to wonder whether perhaps you like "a wee look" because in your eyes there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

And I'm oot.

[Alfa numeric]

Aberdeenloon said:

Frankeh is defending a person's right to view child porn "because he didn't take the pictures/make the video - you think that is a decent point?

No I don't think anyone does. However insinuating that he's one himself was probably a new low on PH. If I were you I'd apologise.

[Aberdeenloon]

Alfa numeric said:

No I don't think anyone does. However insinuating that he's one himself was probably a new low on PH. If I were you I'd apologise.

Ok. Frankeh, I unreservedly apologise for that, I have no excuse for it. I still cannot and will not agree with your point of view.

[gtdc]

Aberdeenloon said:

Alfa numeric said:

No I don't think anyone does. However insinuating that he's one himself was probably a new low on PH. If I were you I'd apologise.

Ok. Frankeh, I unreservedly apologise for that, I have no excuse for it. I still cannot and will not agree with your point of view.

I think his friend's told him a load of lies and he's fallen for them.

[TonyHetherington]

Just about to delete everything, edit, you name it but just seen the apology.

As you can guess, it was an extreme and unwelcome thing to suggest, but thanks for bringing the discussion back to decency and feel free all to carry on.

Tony (moderator)

[Eric Mc]

tinman0 said:

Eric Mc said:

But are they EQUALLY wrong?

Ah fk it. You live in this cesspit of a country that debates how innocent or guilty a self confessed pedophile who looks at dodgy material is.

Not me - the courts.

The law DOES recognise the difference and will hand out different sentences to those found guilty of the varying degrees of criminality.

What I am arguing against here is the rabid vigilanteism that crops up on PH which seems to wish that the rule of law be overidden by the rule of the mob.


People are so emotive abbout this topic that logic and sense goes out the window.

[gtdc]

And yet some decent points are being raised in this thread.

[CampDavid]

Aberdeenloon said:

Sensationalist bks? The woman was photographing kids for a paedophile ring and has since been convicted!

Frankeh is defending a person's right to view child porn "because he didn't take the pictures/make the video - you think that is a decent point?

I've glossed over your other posts, I'm not going to devote my time to reading the rants of someone who just throws insults about. I don't buy the point you're highlighting above, however the quote on page 1 - "Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that not all paedophiles are inherently bad people. They've got a mental disorder and treatment should be sought, but with the current view of paedophilia then it's no surprise they're reluctant to go to therapists and such." is probably pretty valid. Like, I'd imagine, everyone on this thread I have no idea what's going on with people who are into this. I don't believe the thoughts you have make you a bad person, rather it's the things that you do. Clearly a lot of these people are mentally ill and instead of them being driven underground it's probably a better idea for them to be able to get some kind of treatment.

Anyway, looks like this debates over.