4 ms·

Well they certainly aren't on my side, and I don't want to be on their side. They aggregate and analyze data used to conduct drone strikes, spy on the world in

by ledge 13y ago

Well they certainly aren't on my side, and I don't want to be on their side. They aggregate and analyze data used to conduct drone strikes, spy on the world indiscriminately, and assist brutal agencies like the DEA in destroying the lives of millions of innocent Americans. Is it a paranoid delusion if you're a drug dealer to think that the NSA is out to get you? Not anymore. What about a drug user? What about a file-sharer? A child porn viewer? You might not be any of these things, but a huge portion of the American citizenry is, and I'd argue they're not doing anything wrong. Sorry but I'm not going to just take it on faith that the NSA is on 'our side'.

diminoten 13y ago
You'd argue that a child porn viewer isn't doing anything wrong? Your opinion officially doesn't matter any more. Sorry, I have a 10 yr old sister and I simply can't abide folks who won't even do the research to understand what it means when they say things.
- ledge 13y ago
  Yes I said that without doing any research on the subject ever. And yes one opinion of mine invalidates every other opinion I have, how true. You win, good arguments. Edit: For a more serious reply, there is evidence that countries that have decriminalized viewing child pornography (not production) have seen decreased rates of child sex abuse. Also, the definition of child pornography is so broad that we have a lot of people rotting in jail for looking at a naked picture that a 14 year old took of themselves in the mirror. Once in jail, these people become targets for violence and ironically sexual abuse. The topic is not black and white, and when you try to shut down conversation the way you did, it's not helping anyone, children included.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Are you seriously trying to defend child pornography?
    - ledge 13y ago
      I am defending certain people convicted under child pornography laws, yes. I am also trying to engage in a serious discussion, ideas from which might reduce harm done to children, but you seem to have no interest in that. Either way, you can strike "child pornography viewers" from my original comment and replace it with "prostitutes", "on-line gamblers", or any other person guilty of a moral crime. The point is that it's us vs. them because a large number of "us" are at risk of being targeted and incarcerated by "them". I have friends in jail for drug offenses, and it's very possible a lead from an intelligence agency was instrumental in their arrest. My own apartment was raided not that long ago, and I can't help but wonder if it's due to some text messages sent back in my college days, so speak for yourself when you say that they're on "our side".
      - diminoten 13y ago
        > and it's very possible a lead from an intelligence agency was instrumental in their arrest. So you have no clue, do you? The NSA is on your side when it comes to international threats. If you decide to break the law, and they find out about it, that's a different ball game. Pro tip: don't break the law.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  I have a 3 year old and a 1 year old and I can't abide by folks who are so bad at statistics that they'd happily ruin the world for fear of some statistical implausibility to become true in their lives. I understand that you're taking this position with the best of intentions but 'child porn is bad' does not equate with 'a surveilance state is good because it gets rid of child porn or its viewers'. Fear is such a bad counsel.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    And I can't abide by folks who take pictures of children for the sake of their own sexual gratification. But at no time did I say a surveillance state was okay for this reason. Don't put words in my mouth.
  - w0rd-driven 13y ago
    I've always had this weird observation. What makes child porn different than a parent having photos of their naked child? Porn isn't just sex acts. There are clear distinctions, yes, but this line can get extremely blurry real quick. I often wonder at what point a police state would get the wrong idea and arrest a parent for their own perfectly innocuous photos. It just always fascinates me when morality can be subjective like this and completely up to individual interpretation.

by ledge 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago

You'd argue that a child porn viewer isn't doing anything wrong? Your opinion officially doesn't matter any more. Sorry, I have a 10 yr old sister and I simply can't abide folks who won't even do the research to understand what it means when they say things.

ledge 13y ago
Yes I said that without doing any research on the subject ever. And yes one opinion of mine invalidates every other opinion I have, how true. You win, good arguments. Edit: For a more serious reply, there is evidence that countries that have decriminalized viewing child pornography (not production) have seen decreased rates of child sex abuse. Also, the definition of child pornography is so broad that we have a lot of people rotting in jail for looking at a naked picture that a 14 year old took of themselves in the mirror. Once in jail, these people become targets for violence and ironically sexual abuse. The topic is not black and white, and when you try to shut down conversation the way you did, it's not helping anyone, children included.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Are you seriously trying to defend child pornography?
  - ledge 13y ago
    I am defending certain people convicted under child pornography laws, yes. I am also trying to engage in a serious discussion, ideas from which might reduce harm done to children, but you seem to have no interest in that. Either way, you can strike "child pornography viewers" from my original comment and replace it with "prostitutes", "on-line gamblers", or any other person guilty of a moral crime. The point is that it's us vs. them because a large number of "us" are at risk of being targeted and incarcerated by "them". I have friends in jail for drug offenses, and it's very possible a lead from an intelligence agency was instrumental in their arrest. My own apartment was raided not that long ago, and I can't help but wonder if it's due to some text messages sent back in my college days, so speak for yourself when you say that they're on "our side".
    - diminoten 13y ago
      > and it's very possible a lead from an intelligence agency was instrumental in their arrest. So you have no clue, do you? The NSA is on your side when it comes to international threats. If you decide to break the law, and they find out about it, that's a different ball game. Pro tip: don't break the law.
jacquesm 13y ago
I have a 3 year old and a 1 year old and I can't abide by folks who are so bad at statistics that they'd happily ruin the world for fear of some statistical implausibility to become true in their lives. I understand that you're taking this position with the best of intentions but 'child porn is bad' does not equate with 'a surveilance state is good because it gets rid of child porn or its viewers'. Fear is such a bad counsel.
- diminoten 13y ago
  And I can't abide by folks who take pictures of children for the sake of their own sexual gratification. But at no time did I say a surveillance state was okay for this reason. Don't put words in my mouth.
- w0rd-driven 13y ago
  I've always had this weird observation. What makes child porn different than a parent having photos of their naked child? Porn isn't just sex acts. There are clear distinctions, yes, but this line can get extremely blurry real quick. I often wonder at what point a police state would get the wrong idea and arrest a parent for their own perfectly innocuous photos. It just always fascinates me when morality can be subjective like this and completely up to individual interpretation.