🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 02 May 2005 01:48:44 GMT, fuhfuhfreddie
<freddie@dontbother.com> wrote:

>In article <6vqa71hmfk8m3nic1nbfpnki0ur85ke2ef@4ax.com>,
> Ninth Commandment <ninthcommandment@johnandrew.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 May 2005 23:10:36 GMT, fuhfuhfreddie
>> <freddie@dontbother.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >First, my dear dimwit, you have to realize that there are tens of 
>> >thousands of binary groups, not to mention tens of thousands of 
>> >non-binary groups, most of them with nothing in them but a little bit of 
>> >spam. People who post disgusting porn just move their stuff into other 
>> >groups if ISPs start eliminating groups that are used for porn.
>
>> Newsgroups with titles like pedophilia and incest and rape are still
>> propagated even though they can be eliminated. Forget the fact it is
>> disgusting. I is illegal.
>
>Try reading for comprehension, Ninth. Getting rid of newsgroups with 
>certain names will not get rid of their content. The content will just 
>be posted in other groups. 

Where it will be cancelled by a Polarbear type program or reported
back to its point of origin as being off topic at which point a UDP
can be put on it. Getting rid of these newsgroups is the
responsibility of Shaw and any other USENET server. It is the law and
should be enforced. People who refuse to do this in the industry are
the best friends of the child pornographers and rape fans. The Rape
Relief groups and law enforcement should be all over this issue.

>>  That 
>> >genie is way, way out of the bottle.
>> They have never tried to cork it.
>> 
>> >
>> >Second, the ISPs do not want to be responsible for the content of what 
>> >their customers download because that would be a huge legal headache for 
>> >them. And the customers, with a few dimwitted exceptions, do not want 
>> >the stuffed suits at Telus and Shaw to decide what is appropriate or not 
>> >for them to look at.
>
>> Lisps who propagate newsgroups whose only function is illegal are
>> committing an illegal act.
>
>"Only function?" Do you put it that way for a reason? You know, the 
>second somebody posts a piece of commercial, non-pornographic spam in a 
>group, there it is -- another function.
>
>But you're failing to understand the part about the genie being out of 
>the bottle. Not only can anyone post anything to any group with very 
>little chance of anyone else being able to do anything about it, but any 
>idiot can learn to create new groups in the .alt hierarchy, and new 
>groups are automatically propagated from one ISP to another when they 
>"peer" with each other. 
Not true. The Canadian govt, Nortel and the Chinese govt have put a
near total muzzle of the Internet there. I'm just advocating closing
down illegal Usenet groups. They have already wiped out the Canadian
based web sites. Sure hope so.

>
>So understand this very clearly: No one can control what shows up on 
>Usenet, legal or illegal. If it offends you, don't look.
Lie. Messages are frequently cancelled. It is illegal and digital,
delete it.

>
>> >Third, the most disgusting imaginable stuff is going to be posted by 
>> >someone, period, no matter whether half the cops in the world are out 
>> >trying to stop them. It is *your* choice whether or not you go to find 
>> >it and look at it. Obviously, you have. No doubt, like Pete Townshend, 
>> >you were just doing research so you could warn the rest of us.
>
>> Actually paid RCMP should be doing that.
>
>RCMP and city police do look at it, and try to catch people who are 
>using children to create the illegal stuff, as they should. 
Excellent. More resources should be going into it.

>
>Whether they should also try to catch people who look at it and don't do 
>anything else is another question, and one I don't think you understand.
Just nail the ones who don't know how to clear their cache. If Ollie
North  can't clear his computers neither can Jack and Jurinder naked
children sex watchers.

>
>> It is easy to see in the list
>> of newsgroups available such binary groups intended solely for illegal
>> purposes. You claim to know its there but want the companies making
>> money from it not to stop it or law enforcement to investigate it.
>
>You seem to have time on your hands, Ninth. Why don't you look through 
>all of the binary groups out there, and report back on whether the 
>illegal stuff appears only in groups whose names indicate they contain 
>illegal stuff. You will of course find, as I have told you, that it's 
>all over the place. In fact, I would guess that people who post the bad 
>stuff more than likely put it in groups where the overworked cops are 
>not likely to look for it on the basis of the groups' names.
I don't watch porn let alone this illegal stuff. I know its there from
seeing other peoples hard drives. The illegal groups have no business
existing and the companies with their resources should have no problem
getting rid of it. They will end up being sued big time hopefully
which is why AOL bailed from USENET a while back. The downloaders
should face jail time, fines and be banned from the Internet.

>
>So, it is completely impractical to try to get this stuff off Usenet 
>*except* by going after the people who produce it. That's where the 
>police should be working.
It's not practical it's just more work for them. 

>
>If by the companies making money from it you mean Telus and Shaw and so 
>on, you have that wrong. They reluctantly provide access to Usenet at 
>all because some of their customers demand it. But Usenet is practically 
>impossible for them to get anything value-added out of by selling extra 
>products and services, so they're really not interested in it. The last 
>thing they want to do is become censors of content, which would be a 
>huge legal headache for them. And as I've said, the last thing we the 
>users should want is for the ISPs to start deciding what you and I can 
>and can't read or look at. Try to grow up and control yourself, instead.
Maturity to you is a steady 24/7 Usenet account to download porn. I
want the ISPs to follow the law and for them to face fines and their
technicians and executives to go to jail if they don't.

>
>> >Fourth, for well over three decades, every study correlating the 
>> >availability of pornography with crime rates, in many different 
>> >countries, has found that when porn is easily available, including 
>> >kiddie porn, the crime rate is either unchanged or *goes down,* 
>> >including child molesting. If you're thinking that looking at kiddie 
>> >porn makes perverts go out and molest children, think again. If 
>> >anything, by getting rid of the porn they jerk off to, you're removing 
>> >the only outlet they have short of actually finding kids to molest. [1]
>
>> I disagree strongly. Porn makes it seem that such behavior is normal
>> and helps groom people into it. 
>
>Would you mind pausing just long enough to prove that?
I can't prove it. It is my belief. In any case  Parliament has long
ago made it a crime to view child porn and rape films. I think the
existing law should be enforced and the penalties increased.
>
>While you're at it, try to comprehend that your disagreement won't 
>change reality. Any criminologist will tell you that the statistics 
>*prove* that the availability of porn does not lead to more sex crime of 
>any kind, including pedophilia. 
Really. News to me. Why is it banned in every jail and prison in the
country then?

>
>Some people think, although it's not proven, that the very availability 
>of porn helps reduce sex crime. But the opposite -- that porn leads to 
>sex crime -- has been definitively disproved, whether you like it or not.
Hey I'm anti-porn but it is legal in Canada. Just enforce the laws on
the books for rape movies and child porn. There are people willing to
pay good money to lawyers to have these laws repealed and the
penalties weakened. 

>
>Try googling on the names Kutchinsky, Diamond, Uchiyama and the word 
>pornography. They're the people who did some of the pioneering studies, 
>going back to the 1960s. 
Doesn't it lead to more adultery, promiscuous STD transmitting sex and
broken families. Ever see the movie Not A Love Story.

>
>> You are defending people who have no
>> outlet to raping children.
>
>I am saying those people *do* have an outlet that lets them spend their 
>sexual energy *without harming children.* You are arguing we should take 
>that away from them. How many of them will then molest real children 
>instead? Would you like that on your conscience?
Some guy or woman rapes a kid and that is on my conscience....... No.
They should remove their sexual energy someway. If not then they
should kill themselves or remove themselves away from children.
Rapists and kiddie diddlers are not given pornography in prison no
matter what treatment program they lie there way into so obviously you
are wrong about the rehab value of porno.  People like you are
fomenting a kiddie diddler paradise atmosphere where child humping is
just seen as some strange biological urge that must be tolerated. No
it is a biological urge or evil that must be eliminated either through
incarcerating or death.

>
>> I think those people should turn themselves
>> in to their local law enforcement or commit suicide. Try chemical
>> castration and throw away the computer.
>
>I defend your right to think that, Ninth, but not your right to force 
>other people to be castrated or to kill themselves because you 
>disapprove of their sexual preferences.
Something we both agree on. Think whatever you want. 

Just don't act on it especially when it comes to things like child
porn and kiddie diddling. I'm glad if my posts encourage these people
to change their lives or at least rethink them. I'm flattered that you
would think my posts would cause some kiddie diddler to kill him or
herself.

>
>Note I have made it very clear that child molesters, including those who 
>use children to produce pornography, should be a high priority with the 
>police. 
Yes you have. The police also hate them. I saw that Robin Sharpe guy
being transferred while in jail and he was not enjoying it one bit. In
fact he was terrified. A guy at a company I worked for ended up going
to the pen for these sorts of crimes (after the girl fought him off by
kicking him in the groin) he was gang raped and came out 100%
homosexual passive bottom.

Of course if they are big and tough and have biker connections they
get treated different.


>But people who get off by looking at pictures you disapprove of, that's 
>something else. Much more difficult to come to terms with. I think it 
>needs more reflection than you have given it so far.
I used to work at boring jobs that didn't require huge amounts of
thought so I had time to ruminate on them. Also my "down" time gives
me time to think. Human beings lived for thousands of years without
this (the vast majority of them). I realize this is a freedom of
speech issue to many people but to me it is a reality decision to
make. People should not be watching or downloading these things. The
only way they will stop is if persuaded or forced.

>
>> Yeah you use your smarts to defend child pornographers. By the way
>> child molesters can't be treated. 
>
>What does that tell you about them? It appears that there are people 
>among us with a different and disturbing sexual preference. Most of them 
>recognize that they must not act on it.
Hallelujah! I'm sure a lot of people get into it a little then pull
back from the abyss. Self control. Having the spouse around. Friends
that would never approve etc.

> You are counselling that we take 
>away the one thing that allows them not to act on it, and then tell them 
>to kill themselves. Think about that, Ninth. Life's complicated.
I made that decision. Fortunately for them I have no legal ability to
do anything about it. Life is complicated, children are born innocent
and it is up to the adult to deal with the situation. Even if the
child is some sort of pre-lolita it is up to the adult to deal with
the problem. I'm well aware that some of them are in love with their
victims but they know it is morally and legally wrong and the onus is
on them to take responsibility and not do anything about their urges.

>
>> >[1] This *not* an endorsement of molesting children for the production 
>> >of kiddie porn. Child molesters are sick puppies who need to be hung by 
>> >the toes and then given psychiatric treatment.
>
>> They are not sick they are evil. These criminals will not be helped by
>> psychiatric treatment. People like you give them a veneer of humanity.
>
>If not human, what are they? You know, people have a long history of 
>dehumanizing other people they don't like, pretending that they're 
>animals or otherwise subhuman, so it becomes easier to kill them.
You are correct. These people are by definition human beings which
makes their behavior all the more reprehensible. Humans have freewill.
Dogs have been known to rape humans but they are acting purely on
instinct and training in the worst cases. In both case the offending
mammal should be put to death.

 It 
>leads to things like genocide and hate killings. Think about whether you 
>want to join their ranks, Ninth.
Genocide of child molesters and kiddie diddlers isn't genocide it is
justice. Equating evil sexual predators with an identifiable group
needing special protection is wrong. In any case I have been a member
of Amnesty International for a long time so when it comes to writing
letters and donating money to help victims of genocide I do my part.

>
Also saw a HA support sticker on a Harley going eastbound on 108th
Ave. this evening.