6 ms·

There are many, many pedophiles out there. I'm also convinced of a conspiracy theory that a lot of dark web traffic and hosts are created/operated by secret pa

There are many, many pedophiles out there. I'm also convinced of a conspiracy theory that a lot of dark web traffic and hosts are created/operated by secret parts of the gov to de-legitimize the need for anonymity. I believe this because it would be too easy with the access to that material and no oversight. Just muddy the waters so nothing in there looks worth protecting. </tinfoil-hat>

ip26 3y ago
There are many, many… It’s a little puzzling to me still why this is. Physical attraction to almost-adults isn’t some big mystery, but most cp is something else entirely.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    I’m no expert here but I’m going to guess that equivocating gay people and pedophiles is not the best starting point to understanding pedophiles.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - jrflowers 3y ago
        I like this question because you explicitly ask me to agree with your premise that pedophiles and gay people are equivalent within your framing of this discussion and then follow it up with “my contention is something other than what I’ve clearly explained” Edit: For clarity, the post this is responding to originally started with “Do you agree that 'adult-adult-hetersexual' is the only orientation that has obvious evolutionary benefit?” It has since been edited to a generic copy-pasted response.
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        [dupe]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - ang_cire 3y ago
        > Do you agree that 'adult-adult-hetersexual' is the only orientation that has obvious evolutionary benefit? This shows a profound misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection on your part. "Evolutionary benefit" is impossible to divorce from circumstances. It doesn't exist as some right/wrong answer, or something you can divine through logic. For instance, same-sex attraction could absolutely be advantageous to a species that is nearing the peak of sustainable population numbers. All species (who can fuck) wanna fuck, and will do so no matter their surrounding circumstances. The difference between one species keeping sustainable numbers, versus another species seeing runaway population numbers causing food source exhaustion and population collapse, could come down to lower procreation rates, in which circumstance strict heterosexuality may not be advantageous. Point being, stop trying to use bad, dime-store "science" to justify your bad opinions about homosexuality.
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        [dupe]
    - School-Cotton 3y ago
      A huge chunk of the GP’s post was disclaimers (“I think child molesters are despicable”, etc.) precisely to avoid their point being misunderstood in this way, which apparently didn’t work.
    - pdntspa 3y ago
      It's not equivocation, it's a categorization of heteronormative and not-heteronormative. Personally I suspect the issue here is that incest is the only form of sexual activity that we have a natural proclivity against, probably because of evolutionary pressure (as in, hard-wired into our DNA) against fucking blood relatives. Because a consistently-inbred population will breed itself into oblivion. People who fuck kids can still successfully reproduce and society trundles on.
      - marcus_holmes 3y ago
        I think your starting point is still kinda skewed, because "heteronormative" is a made-up thing by society rather than an actual thing someone can be. There's a traditional view of sexuality that men are only sexually attracted to women, and vice versa, and that's normal and everything else is not normal (kinky). The more we learn about sex (and gender) the more we learn that there are very few completely "normal" people out there, and a lot of people who are a bit kinky in one respect or another. I think it's now accepted that the hetero-homo thing is a spectrum rather than a binary state, and the primary reason people of the same sex don't have sex with each other is societal pressure rather than biological attraction. e.g. women tend to experiment more with this because society has a more lenient view of "girl-on-girl" than male homosexual sex. My personal opinion is that evolution "wants" everything to fuck everything as much as possible, just to see what happens. The best reproducers are the ones who did the most fucking, after all. But we're getting into Oglaf territory here.
        pdntspa 3y ago
        > I think your starting point is still kinda skewed, because "heteronormative" is a made-up thing by society rather than an actual thing someone can be. It's a term rooted in the conditions that make sex a reproductive act and not just something that feels good
        marcus_holmes 3y ago
        Which is getting back to the religious crap of "sex is only for reproduction, between a married couple". Yes sex can result in reproduction, but I think making that its primary purpose misses the point. We experience a desire to fuck, separate from our desire to reproduce. They're two different things that are only related in a tiny minority of circumstances. Classifying someone's sexuality by its possible reproductive outcome is like classifying their tongues by the ability to curl into a tube: kinda valid, but not that useful.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >it does not exist in any particular way as an obvious evolutionary benefit except for adult-adult-heterosexual. it's not unique to nature. You're in heat, you want to mate with anything that looks attractive. What's attractive will vary immensely based on societal and personal experience, for reasons we still cannot fully understand as the human mind is still a huge secret to unlock. It's not perfect in the same way that few parts of nature are perfectly optimized. Remants of old patterns or general heuristics on "what is good enough" will remain and they can persist for very long times. The only unique-ish thing about humans is that we have no "mating period". We are continuously in heat compared to most of nature, so that urge remains around consistently. Virtually every form of society has evolved some sort of culture to control these urges (as well as ways to control sexual conflict, which is another topic entirely) in order to advance as a civilization otherwise it'd be non-stop mating
    - SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
      > What's attractive will vary immensely based on societal and personal experience, for reasons we still cannot fully understand as the human mind is still a huge secret to unlock. It's not perfect in the same way that few parts of nature are perfectly optimized. Remants of old patterns or general heuristics on "what is good enough" will remain and they can persist for very long times. Is it generally accepted that someone may not be born either straight or gay?
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        I honestly don't know and that's yet another can of worms to open. I can somewhat sidestep that issue and say that societal factors can make you think you are exclusively heterosexual, even if we agreed that sexuality is an internal factor and you were infact born bi/homosexual. Similar to how you can force a left handed person to become right handed.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - incompatible 3y ago
    I think that there's a fairly standard distinction, that doesn't require any consideration of psychological mechanisms. Homosexuality can be practised consensually and nobody else needs to care, because nobody is harmed. Paedophilia can't be practised consensually because children are below the age of consent, and can be harmed. Hence, paedophilia is classified as a mental illness, but homosexuality no longer is (in most Western countries, at least, I believe).
- Tade0 3y ago
  It's a chain of abuse. Most paedophiles were abused in childhood.
  - pjscott 3y ago
    Just about every personality trait with a name has a high degree of genetic heritability. We know this from e.g. studies of identical versus fraternal twins. And people abused as children tend to be closely related to their parents; we know this because we know where babies come from. So, how much of the “chain of abuse” thing is just genetic confounding? I don’t know, which is vexing. As far as I can tell, very few of the chain-of-abuse theorists even think of genetics, even though it’s the elephant in the room, and many are hard-line blank slate believers. (I don’t have citations at the moment, but last time I looked at the relevant academic literature it was, broadly speaking, an absolute dumpster fire.)
  - megous 3y ago
    Pedophilia != child sexual abuse. Just like being attracted to women doesn't mean you're a rapist. You can be, though. Also consumption of any kind of distrubing porn doesn't mean you actually want to do things you see in it in the real life. This is about the same principle like when people are watching action movies (which is an accepted kind of often very disturbing cinematography), most don't want to go around and shoot/stab people. Some very tiny percentage will, of course.
    - batch12 3y ago
      > Also consumption of any kind of distrubing porn doesn't mean you actually want to do things you see in it in the real life. No, but it does mean you support the abuse necessary to produce it.
      - hakavlad 3y ago
        >it does mean you support the abuse necessary to produce it. No. If I download old files through I2PSnark - this does not mean that CP will be produced in greater quantities.
- sacrosancty 3y ago
  [dead]
- LexiMax 3y ago
  > It’s a little puzzling to me still why this is. Because there's a power imbalance that predators are all-too-eager to exploit. Sometimes in the literal definition in terms of raw strength, but just as much in terms of social manipulation and life experience that can take advantage of their often more naive victims. There's also a layer of assumed authority and deference at play.
nicoco 3y ago
Doesn't seem that much tinfoil hat to me. The Snowden leaks taught us that a bit of tinfoil hatting is reasonable. Before we had access to so many cop video footage, the ideas that they were the bad guys and did stuff like actually being the guys who attack and break stuff during protests were considered crazy. Etc, etc.
barrysteve 3y ago
You literally don't need a tinfoil conspiracy for that idea. IBM is moving to passwordless auth on their server access. Preferring biometrics. Their youtube channel tells you directly. The "mainstream" culture has been pushing that idea for five years now, Philomena Cunk said we shouldn't follow the anonymous guy in 2018, golly gosh. My iphone plainly face scans me and my shopping malls and sports stadiums do the same. Frankly the last place left to BE anonymous is Tor and on soap-box websites like this where the admin can decipher my ID but you don't know who I am. Obiwan has the realistic attitude. "The war's over. We lost." It's impossible to completely eliminate secrets, but the liberty of the 1990s is deader than a dodo. Anonymity, the unknown citizen, staying off the map is basically reserved for martians now.
- anthk 3y ago
  Use nncp-go over sneakernet. Also, nntp can be user over i2pd just fine, lots of people using for the ethical opposite of CP; that's it, hugely ethical reasons, such as Ukrainian and Russian folks politely talking together and being fed up of the war.
hakavlad 3y ago
>There are many, many pedophiles If a person watches the CP - this does not mean that he is a pedophile. If a person watches the CP - this does not mean that he is a child abuser. Sharing CP != child abuse. Viewing CP != child abuse. Storing CP != child abuse.
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  Gross. You’re abusing the child any time you watch it.
  - hakavlad 3y ago
    I don't abuse kids whether or not I watch CP. Please provide evidence if you are making serious accusations.
    - P_I_Staker 3y ago
      You here means anyone watching it, but interesting to see you get so defensive. The idea that you think "watching CP != abuse" is suspicious to begin with. I wasn't, but it would be reasonable to accuse you of being a pedophile based on this.
      - hakavlad 3y ago
        >accuse you of being a pedophile based on this Please read the diagnostic criteria: https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f517058174 https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int... -- there is no mention of CP.
      - hakavlad 3y ago
        JFYI: Pedophile != Child abuser.
        P_I_Staker 3y ago
        If they have pictures on their PCs they are. It's weird that you're arguing with this.

ip26 3y ago

There are many, many… It’s a little puzzling to me still why this is. Physical attraction to almost-adults isn’t some big mystery, but most cp is something else entirely.

Eisenstein 3y ago
[flagged]
- jrflowers 3y ago
  I’m no expert here but I’m going to guess that equivocating gay people and pedophiles is not the best starting point to understanding pedophiles.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - jrflowers 3y ago
      I like this question because you explicitly ask me to agree with your premise that pedophiles and gay people are equivalent within your framing of this discussion and then follow it up with “my contention is something other than what I’ve clearly explained” Edit: For clarity, the post this is responding to originally started with “Do you agree that 'adult-adult-hetersexual' is the only orientation that has obvious evolutionary benefit?” It has since been edited to a generic copy-pasted response.
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        [dupe]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - ang_cire 3y ago
      > Do you agree that 'adult-adult-hetersexual' is the only orientation that has obvious evolutionary benefit? This shows a profound misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection on your part. "Evolutionary benefit" is impossible to divorce from circumstances. It doesn't exist as some right/wrong answer, or something you can divine through logic. For instance, same-sex attraction could absolutely be advantageous to a species that is nearing the peak of sustainable population numbers. All species (who can fuck) wanna fuck, and will do so no matter their surrounding circumstances. The difference between one species keeping sustainable numbers, versus another species seeing runaway population numbers causing food source exhaustion and population collapse, could come down to lower procreation rates, in which circumstance strict heterosexuality may not be advantageous. Point being, stop trying to use bad, dime-store "science" to justify your bad opinions about homosexuality.
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        [dupe]
  - School-Cotton 3y ago
    A huge chunk of the GP’s post was disclaimers (“I think child molesters are despicable”, etc.) precisely to avoid their point being misunderstood in this way, which apparently didn’t work.
  - pdntspa 3y ago
    It's not equivocation, it's a categorization of heteronormative and not-heteronormative. Personally I suspect the issue here is that incest is the only form of sexual activity that we have a natural proclivity against, probably because of evolutionary pressure (as in, hard-wired into our DNA) against fucking blood relatives. Because a consistently-inbred population will breed itself into oblivion. People who fuck kids can still successfully reproduce and society trundles on.
    - marcus_holmes 3y ago
      I think your starting point is still kinda skewed, because "heteronormative" is a made-up thing by society rather than an actual thing someone can be. There's a traditional view of sexuality that men are only sexually attracted to women, and vice versa, and that's normal and everything else is not normal (kinky). The more we learn about sex (and gender) the more we learn that there are very few completely "normal" people out there, and a lot of people who are a bit kinky in one respect or another. I think it's now accepted that the hetero-homo thing is a spectrum rather than a binary state, and the primary reason people of the same sex don't have sex with each other is societal pressure rather than biological attraction. e.g. women tend to experiment more with this because society has a more lenient view of "girl-on-girl" than male homosexual sex. My personal opinion is that evolution "wants" everything to fuck everything as much as possible, just to see what happens. The best reproducers are the ones who did the most fucking, after all. But we're getting into Oglaf territory here.
      - pdntspa 3y ago
        > I think your starting point is still kinda skewed, because "heteronormative" is a made-up thing by society rather than an actual thing someone can be. It's a term rooted in the conditions that make sex a reproductive act and not just something that feels good
        marcus_holmes 3y ago
        Which is getting back to the religious crap of "sex is only for reproduction, between a married couple". Yes sex can result in reproduction, but I think making that its primary purpose misses the point. We experience a desire to fuck, separate from our desire to reproduce. They're two different things that are only related in a tiny minority of circumstances. Classifying someone's sexuality by its possible reproductive outcome is like classifying their tongues by the ability to curl into a tube: kinda valid, but not that useful.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >it does not exist in any particular way as an obvious evolutionary benefit except for adult-adult-heterosexual. it's not unique to nature. You're in heat, you want to mate with anything that looks attractive. What's attractive will vary immensely based on societal and personal experience, for reasons we still cannot fully understand as the human mind is still a huge secret to unlock. It's not perfect in the same way that few parts of nature are perfectly optimized. Remants of old patterns or general heuristics on "what is good enough" will remain and they can persist for very long times. The only unique-ish thing about humans is that we have no "mating period". We are continuously in heat compared to most of nature, so that urge remains around consistently. Virtually every form of society has evolved some sort of culture to control these urges (as well as ways to control sexual conflict, which is another topic entirely) in order to advance as a civilization otherwise it'd be non-stop mating
  - SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
    > What's attractive will vary immensely based on societal and personal experience, for reasons we still cannot fully understand as the human mind is still a huge secret to unlock. It's not perfect in the same way that few parts of nature are perfectly optimized. Remants of old patterns or general heuristics on "what is good enough" will remain and they can persist for very long times. Is it generally accepted that someone may not be born either straight or gay?
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      I honestly don't know and that's yet another can of worms to open. I can somewhat sidestep that issue and say that societal factors can make you think you are exclusively heterosexual, even if we agreed that sexuality is an internal factor and you were infact born bi/homosexual. Similar to how you can force a left handed person to become right handed.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- incompatible 3y ago
  I think that there's a fairly standard distinction, that doesn't require any consideration of psychological mechanisms. Homosexuality can be practised consensually and nobody else needs to care, because nobody is harmed. Paedophilia can't be practised consensually because children are below the age of consent, and can be harmed. Hence, paedophilia is classified as a mental illness, but homosexuality no longer is (in most Western countries, at least, I believe).
Tade0 3y ago
It's a chain of abuse. Most paedophiles were abused in childhood.
- pjscott 3y ago
  Just about every personality trait with a name has a high degree of genetic heritability. We know this from e.g. studies of identical versus fraternal twins. And people abused as children tend to be closely related to their parents; we know this because we know where babies come from. So, how much of the “chain of abuse” thing is just genetic confounding? I don’t know, which is vexing. As far as I can tell, very few of the chain-of-abuse theorists even think of genetics, even though it’s the elephant in the room, and many are hard-line blank slate believers. (I don’t have citations at the moment, but last time I looked at the relevant academic literature it was, broadly speaking, an absolute dumpster fire.)
- megous 3y ago
  Pedophilia != child sexual abuse. Just like being attracted to women doesn't mean you're a rapist. You can be, though. Also consumption of any kind of distrubing porn doesn't mean you actually want to do things you see in it in the real life. This is about the same principle like when people are watching action movies (which is an accepted kind of often very disturbing cinematography), most don't want to go around and shoot/stab people. Some very tiny percentage will, of course.
  - batch12 3y ago
    > Also consumption of any kind of distrubing porn doesn't mean you actually want to do things you see in it in the real life. No, but it does mean you support the abuse necessary to produce it.
    - hakavlad 3y ago
      >it does mean you support the abuse necessary to produce it. No. If I download old files through I2PSnark - this does not mean that CP will be produced in greater quantities.
sacrosancty 3y ago
[dead]
LexiMax 3y ago
> It’s a little puzzling to me still why this is. Because there's a power imbalance that predators are all-too-eager to exploit. Sometimes in the literal definition in terms of raw strength, but just as much in terms of social manipulation and life experience that can take advantage of their often more naive victims. There's also a layer of assumed authority and deference at play.

nicoco 3y ago

Doesn't seem that much tinfoil hat to me. The Snowden leaks taught us that a bit of tinfoil hatting is reasonable. Before we had access to so many cop video footage, the ideas that they were the bad guys and did stuff like actually being the guys who attack and break stuff during protests were considered crazy. Etc, etc.

barrysteve 3y ago

You literally don't need a tinfoil conspiracy for that idea. IBM is moving to passwordless auth on their server access. Preferring biometrics. Their youtube channel tells you directly. The "mainstream" culture has been pushing that idea for five years now, Philomena Cunk said we shouldn't follow the anonymous guy in 2018, golly gosh. My iphone plainly face scans me and my shopping malls and sports stadiums do the same. Frankly the last place left to BE anonymous is Tor and on soap-box websites like this where the admin can decipher my ID but you don't know who I am. Obiwan has the realistic attitude. "The war's over. We lost." It's impossible to completely eliminate secrets, but the liberty of the 1990s is deader than a dodo. Anonymity, the unknown citizen, staying off the map is basically reserved for martians now.

anthk 3y ago
Use nncp-go over sneakernet. Also, nntp can be user over i2pd just fine, lots of people using for the ethical opposite of CP; that's it, hugely ethical reasons, such as Ukrainian and Russian folks politely talking together and being fed up of the war.

hakavlad 3y ago

>There are many, many pedophiles If a person watches the CP - this does not mean that he is a pedophile. If a person watches the CP - this does not mean that he is a child abuser. Sharing CP != child abuse. Viewing CP != child abuse. Storing CP != child abuse.

P_I_Staker 3y ago
Gross. You’re abusing the child any time you watch it.
- hakavlad 3y ago
  I don't abuse kids whether or not I watch CP. Please provide evidence if you are making serious accusations.
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    You here means anyone watching it, but interesting to see you get so defensive. The idea that you think "watching CP != abuse" is suspicious to begin with. I wasn't, but it would be reasonable to accuse you of being a pedophile based on this.
    - hakavlad 3y ago
      >accuse you of being a pedophile based on this Please read the diagnostic criteria: https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f517058174 https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int... -- there is no mention of CP.
    - hakavlad 3y ago
      JFYI: Pedophile != Child abuser.
      - P_I_Staker 3y ago
        If they have pictures on their PCs they are. It's weird that you're arguing with this.