^^LOL

I'm mostly serious. I mean, unless someone clarifies their libertarianism with "I love drugs," I'm going to assume they're all perverts from here on out.

^^^Pretty sure we all wanted to see boobs. Like, adult lady breasts jiggling to and fro.

12/23/2016 4:33:00 AM

Quote :

"but if you'd like to do something other than ride my dick"

What is this, 2005 again? Get some new material dude. Then try to address the merits of my posts instead of resorting to this childish shit. SAD!

12/23/2016 10:31:19 AM

Your post was a thinly veiled personal attack. By definition, it had no merits. Seriously, shut up.

12/23/2016 10:59:40 AM

Oh, burro is back to defend kiddie porn?

12/23/2016 11:01:44 AM

reminder that aaronburro thinks its okay for the government to require you to use a certain bathroom, just not okay for them to tell you not to look at child porn

12/23/2016 11:03:41 AM

Back to get your ass handed to you about cigarettes again? Would you like to compare states with no bans on purchasing to ones with bans on purchasing, and then marvel at the different rates of consumption again?


aaaaaaaaaaaaand the last two posts show why this place is dying. I present *actual* economic arguments, and instead you two twist them into something else, even bringing in shit from other threads. Would either of you actually like to refute my point about consumption bans, or are you just enjoying your circle-jerk? Nowhere have I expressed support for kiddie porn or HB2.

[Edited on December 23, 2016 at 11:16 AM. Reason : ]

12/23/2016 11:04:50 AM

Aww, you think that's even close to being the same. Even if I did use a flawed analogy (which I admitted it's hard to find a good one), you don't support child porn laws and don't even deny it.

12/23/2016 11:06:13 AM

Strawman much? It's a bit of a stretch to go from "consumption bans don't work and are stupid, even in horrible things like child pornography" to "there should be no laws against child porn." Come on, you can do better than that.

12/23/2016 11:08:51 AM

So you're 100% for making a law against the viewing of child porn then?

12/23/2016 11:16:48 AM

Lol aaronburro.

You took a narrow view to defend some trite bullshit semantic view, get destroyed for it, then complain about why the site is dying.

Hilarious.

You don't think it's because you're trying to defend the indefensible? That people ostracize you because of it? That your hill you've decided to die on is a shit one?

Let me be frank about this: no one gives a fuck about whatever point you're trying to make. No one wants to listen to you because the topic is horrific and there is no "nuance" for things like this. When you persist to try and make a point, all you do is piss people off. You're arguing for the sake of argument. I'd suggest you shutting the fuck up, but you lack the common sense to listen, and you lack the social aptitude to read sentiment.

So carry on trying to defend the indefensible, and we'll carry on thinking of you as that guy who tried to defend child porn on TWW.

Have a great day!!!!

12/23/2016 11:17:09 AM

So, this thread.

12/23/2016 11:21:41 AM

^^ Destroyed? Where? bbehe tried to show that consumption bans work for cigarettes and got embarrassed. Where did anyone provide any other argument that consumption bans work? You can't just say something without facts to back it up (unless you're a president-elect, lol).

No, I DON'T think I'm defending the indefensible. I am in no way defending child porn in any way, shape, or form. That you can't separate "consumption ban" from "child porn" suggests a problem with your mental faculties, not mine. It shows a complete inability to comprehend what you are reading and separate emotion from logic. That's why we fucking got the PATRIOT Act. Because people acted on emotion instead of using logic and reason.


^^ I am 100% against a law criminalizing the viewing of child porn. I am 100% for creating a law that deals with the viewing of child porn in a way that helps get those addicted to it help so they stop consuming it while also allowing law-enforcement agencies to go after the suppliers of child porn. Hell, I even posted a suggested law that could be passed. Are you too lazy to read that, or would you rather just throw up a strawman of "HERPA DURP BURRO THINKS IT'S OK TO WATCH CHILD PORN, HERPA DURP!!!!"? Your call.

12/23/2016 11:30:35 AM

Raping children is a crime.

Watching children being raped makes you a participant in that crime.

Last I checked it was pretty common to charge/convict/imprison accomplices.

12/23/2016 11:34:06 AM

LOL I'm back just to enjoy this

12/23/2016 11:36:35 AM

Are snuff films illegal?

12/23/2016 11:43:33 AM

Nah man, I'm not embarrassed, as mentioned, I already said the analogy is far from perfect, but hey, you keep on doing you and defending the view points of a pedophile.

12/23/2016 12:43:13 PM

^^^^ This is where I get dangerously close to parrotting pizzaboy's argument. Criminalizing the viewing of a crime is an extremely fine line to walk. Suggesting that someone who views a crime is an "accomplice" is a fairly large leap in a direction that I don't think we as a society want to go.


Back to "defending the indefensible." I think this situation is a perfect example of our collective inability to discuss things rationally. The only acceptable societal response when talking about laws regarding child pornography is complete, unwavering acceptance of all of them. We aren't allowed at all to discuss if the ones we have on the books are working, much less if we can do better. It's same reason that we have sex-workers being enslaved by the industry: because we can't talk about better ways to handle prostitution because the immediate cry is "OMG YOU ARE OK WITH WOMEN BEING FORCED INTO SEX SLAVERY!!!" It's the same reason we got the PATRIOT ACT, because any dissent was met with "OMG WE JUST GOT ATTACKED!!! WE HAVE TO RESPOND!!! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA!!!" It's the same reason we can't have reasonable drug laws.

This isn't "nuance." It's not a semantic argument. It's an argument that banning the viewing of child pornography may actually lead to increased viewing of child pornography, which is the exact opposite of what we want. Any person who wants to view child pornography has a medical problem and needs help. Banning their medical problem doesn't make it go away, but it DOES make that person far less likely to seek help. Because the first thing that person has to do is admit that he is engaged in criminal activity, activity which probably has to be reported to the authorities based upon other laws. We see that sex workers are unable to get out of the business because of fear of prosecution for being a sex-worker. The same is likely to be true for addicts of child porn. But hey, we can't talk about it, because I'm just defending the indefensible. We can't talk about legitimate ways to reduce child pornography, because the only acceptable opinion is that all of our laws are 100% perfect and fuck anybody who says otherwise.


^ nice. showing that you have literally no point left. Keep on deflecting, because you know I'm right. Your analogy isn't just "far from perfect." It actually proved my point for me, lol.

[Edited on December 23, 2016 at 12:51 PM. Reason : ]

12/23/2016 12:48:46 PM

Well, what do you want? Again, I told you it was a flaw analogy since you said this.

Quote :

"And I take issue with your example of minor alcohol consumption. There are most certainly bans on minors consuming alcohol, but there also laws banning the supply, too. Any analysis on the differences between the US and Europe must take that into account. I'd argue that US bans on consumption alone in this case have a negligible effect on curbing the desire of people under the age of 21 to consume alcohol."

There are literally no other analogs to child pornography that you can use to make a good example. The production and distribution of child pornography always has an inherent victim to it unlike your flawed example of sex workers or alcohol production.

Also, there aren't any laws against pedophilia, you could easily seek help by going to a hospital, doctor, etc and say 'I'm having these urges that I need to get under control'. Not every pedophile has viewed child porn, some seek healthy ways of support. So I don't buy into your argument that more people will seek help if you decriminalize it. As I mentioned before, I'm all for treating these people and getting them help, but they can be done within a jail cell.

While I don't have any stats besides anecdotal evidence about hearing about child pornography rings in the news, I would bet heavily that those viewing are also into distribution. With something like drugs, I think there is a much larger segment of that population who are consumers only.

12/23/2016 1:07:56 PM

Quote :

"As I said, you're backing up GeniusXPedo's consumption-based arguments when it comes to child porn...you're completely parroting his FB arguments ITT"

Quote :

"Again, no I'm not... I know you like riding my nuts...ride my dick...shut the fuck up and stop stalking me on here. Jeez, man, get a fucking life."

Quote :

"Your post was a thinly veiled personal attack"

LOL and my post was the personal attack eh?

Quote :

"This is where I get dangerously close to parrotting pizzaboy's argument"

Dangerously close my ass.

12/23/2016 1:24:53 PM

My analogies to alcohol and sex workers don't need to have a victim in order to make the point that consumption bans don't work at reducing consumption. It's an economic argument, pure and simple. Banning demand doesn't reduce demand, it just shifts it underground.

You're naive if you think that someone who is breaking the law is going to come forward and admit to someone that he has major precursors to breaking the law, namely pedophillic tendencies. IF he is only viewing at the time, he is discouraged from coming forward.

And I imagine that it is true that viewers tend to also be distributors. As I stated before, because the two are so strongly correlated that you could easily get a warrant to check for signs of distribution based solely on the possession or viewing of the material. This makes a law against consumption pointless, because you've already got what you need: bans on distribution. I would also suspect that the first step is consumption alone, followed some time later by distribution in order to support the consumption. If the person can get help BEFORE he starts trading in it, then we could stop a potential distributor... but not if he's afraid to even get help because he would have to admit to committing a crime in order to get that help.

12/23/2016 1:32:06 PM

Quote :

"You're naive if you think that someone who is breaking the law is going to come forward and admit to someone that he has major precursors to breaking the law, namely pedophillic tendencies. IF he is only viewing at the time, he is discouraged from coming forward."

So rehab clinics and self help groups aren't a thing? What about going to counseling for violent behavior/urges before those urges turn into assault?

12/23/2016 1:41:28 PM

It's really fucking weird if this is the issue that inspires you to be compassionate all of the sudden.

Also, we should definitely stop acting like people can "get help" for this shit.

I mean, just thinking about it, like really going over in my head the extent to which I think aaronburro is definitely involved in this trash, and I know that all the help he needs is to go to prison or kill himself. And the more that he posts about fucking consumption bans, the more I just want him to die.

12/23/2016 1:51:30 PM

henceforth, in the sprit of lafta bucks, i shall refer to kiddie porn as aaronburro porn

how wild is it that All Around Pizza was just a front for gatherings of aaronburro porn enthusiasts?

[Edited on December 23, 2016 at 2:04 PM. Reason : u]

12/23/2016 2:03:37 PM

BridgetSPK said:

Quote :

"Also, we should definitely stop acting like people can "get help" for this shit."

I'd love for you to unpack this statement for me.

12/23/2016 2:06:04 PM

Quote :

"It's really fucking weird if this is the issue that inspires you to be compassionate all of the sudden."

12/23/2016 2:12:08 PM

Don't worry the FBI scanning this board since PizzaBoy probably also find his defense of child porn interesting. TWW News Watch, activate!

12/23/2016 2:15:00 PM

oops

[Edited on December 23, 2016 at 3:49 PM. Reason : wrong thread]

12/23/2016 3:49:29 PM

I just want to say kiljadn is the current MVP of this thread

continue

12/23/2016 3:52:02 PM

Really didn't mean to thread strafe but the HDD in question resides on my desk but uses the old ATX compliant stuff.
All my old shit has don 'sploded.
I'll get them on here sooner rather than later.

12/23/2016 4:26:26 PM

Pretty good TWW drama.

Quote :

"I'd love for you to unpack this statement for me."

Not sure what she meant, but I think pedophilia is probably a lot like narcissism; there aren't a ton of stories about how someone became reformed.

[Edited on December 23, 2016 at 5:34 PM. Reason : ]

12/23/2016 5:33:33 PM

This is a disgustingly great read

12/23/2016 6:00:11 PM

I went in his pizza place once. time to wash my mouth with soap, 4 years later

12/23/2016 7:59:37 PM

Why, did you blow him?

12/23/2016 8:14:39 PM

I ate a piece of pizza he made. it's probably the same thing

12/23/2016 8:28:33 PM

Hey, you guys

aaronburro would like to have a rational conversation about child porn

K?

Like, one that's based on calm assessment of the definition of child porn.

About the economics of it.

After that, we can talk about other forms of rape.

Then murder.

Rationally tho

12/24/2016 12:06:24 AM

[Edited on December 24, 2016 at 12:24 AM. Reason : cause that should be the thing we're talking instead of demonizing the people who consume images of children being raped. Economics!]

12/24/2016 12:21:32 AM

Quote :

"aaronburro would like to have a rational conversation about child porn "

You mean aaronburro porn

12/24/2016 10:23:51 AM

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE

12/24/2016 10:51:58 AM

Why would anyone other than a champion of civil liberties, of which Arron burrito has shown no tendencies toward, defend such a taboo subject? In fact the only person I can think of who attempted the same defense was actually charged with possession of said material. Are we to believe this is no more than coincidence?

12/24/2016 12:12:27 PM

aaronburro,
I understand that you are against consumption bands. And you know what?? it makes total sense. They have been repeatedly been shown to not work.

But, that is not all that is happening here. When these things happen, children are the victims. And each time their picture is viewed, they are being victimized all over again. It is not simple human supply/demand. That's what makes us human, we understand consequences and emotions.

I think you know that you will not be able to convince a majority of any group of people that this is ok. Consumption bans are still a thing, We have yet to decriminalize marijuana and even if it ever is... kiddo porn will still be banned. No one is going to err on the other side of this. No one is willing, or should be willing to champion this cause. Let it rest, it's quite literally the worst cause you could ever stand up for.

Have a happy holiday, and maybe avoid school zones for awhile.

[Edited on December 24, 2016 at 9:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/24/2016 9:10:47 PM

^ Nice job leading with the rogerian argument!

12/25/2016 1:00:43 AM

Quote :

"AGAINST CONSUMPTION BANDS"

12/25/2016 5:47:26 AM

^damnit, whatever

^^ well I genuinely mean it, I don't think consumption BANS work at all

12/25/2016 9:14:02 AM

I guess the real question is, did gun owners get discounts on their underage porn?

12/26/2016 7:30:31 AM

Quote :

" CONSUMPTION BANDZ A MAKE HER DANCE"

12/26/2016 7:37:06 AM

^

12/26/2016 9:06:44 AM

THAT GURL IS A REAL CROWD PLZR

12/26/2016 10:54:34 AM

Quote :

"So rehab clinics and self help groups aren't a thing? What about going to counseling for violent behavior/urges before those urges turn into assault?"

Yes, rehab clinics are a thing. My point is that if the person is breaking the law by viewing the material, they will be less likely to go to a rehab clinic. Getting counseling before the assault is all fine and dandy, but if you've already assaulted someone (which would be the analogue here), I'm pretty certain counselors have to report those things, so it's not a good apples to apples comparison.

Quote :

"Why would anyone other than a champion of civil liberties, of which Arron burrito has shown no tendencies toward, defend such a taboo subject? In fact the only person I can think of who attempted the same defense was actually charged with possession of said material. Are we to believe this is no more than coincidence?"

Clearly you haven't read much from me, then. I'm a pretty ardent supporter of the 1st Amendment. I'm horrified at how the PATRIOT ACT has been abused to demolish any sense of privacy we ever had. Hell, you'll frequently find me bitching about how cops are roughing people up far too often. People on here misrepresent my arguments, because it's much easier to say "YOU HATE THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE!!!!" than to actually understand an argument and what it's based on. Anyway, have fun with your lame attempt at guilt by association.

Quote :

"But, that is not all that is happening here. When these things happen, children are the victims. And each time their picture is viewed, they are being victimized all over again."

I would disagree. The child was victimized when the video was made, not when it was viewed. The child doesn't experience the trauma of the rape when some unknown person at some unknown time in some unknown location views the video again. Whether said person watches the video once or fifty times doesn't change the fact that the video was made, and it doesn't make the video get made again. That some fucker is watching it isn't the problem: the video exists, and that's the problem. This isn't an argument that it's OK to watch the video. It's an argument that the sicko watching that shit isn't adding to the child's already experienced trauma.

My argument has never been that it's OK to watch kiddie porn or that watching it something that should be encouraged or ignored. Instead, it's an acknowledgement of the real harms that child porn causes, and that if we want to limit that harm, we shouldn't take measures that make us feel good but which actually make the problem worse. I would argue that bans on viewing the material not only accomplish nothing, as you readily admit, but they actually make the problem worse.

I don't think anyone should be "championing" this cause. Do I want us to go out and change laws regarding the viewing of child pornography? It's not on my list of important shit, no. Truth be told, if a candidate stood up and made this part of his platform, I'd cast a suspicious eye at him, too, same as anyone else. Instead, I'm using an extreme case to point out the folly of banning demand, hopefully causing people to rethink their support for such bans in much less extreme circumstances, such as maybe drugs, prostitution, whatever. The negative effects of the bans in those cases are far worse than the ill we're trying to solve via the ban. Fuck kiddie porn, and fuck pizza boy. But consider that banning demand is stupid.


I'll eagerly await the childish retorts of "herp derp, you like kiddie porn, herp derp" now...

[Edited on January 1, 2017 at 6:11 PM. Reason : ]

1/1/2017 6:02:53 PM

Quote :

"I don't think anyone should be "championing" this cause"

Says guy championing this cause on tww.

1/1/2017 6:11:07 PM

eh, not really, but whatever.

1/1/2017 6:12:58 PM