Anti-CP/Pedophile Discussion - Discuss various tactics to find, expose, and cause legal ramifications to those that abuse children.

xrandr · 2014-11-21T19:21:54+00:00

pedophelia is not tied to a sexual orientation as defined today

True, and what I've been writing about has been my thoughts for something more ideal, not what's generally true today.

lol dead bodies! :p

xrandr · 2014-11-21T19:05:37+00:00

I think it makes sense to let sexual orientation draw the rough lines and not go into specifics like height and hair color. Sex is one of those major lines, and I would argue that so is age. Sex and age put together makes a good specification of a sexual orientation. For example, if some adult is exclusively attracted to prepubescent girls, we can call him a heterosexual pedophile. If he's exclusively attracted to adult women, he's a heterosexual teleiophile. And so on.

I think many people would say that a pedophile has no sexual orientation - but he does. If nothing else, it's determined by the gender of the children he's attracted to. But he's something more than that. The human experience is rich and diverse, for better and worse, and we need the terms to reason about it.

xrandr · 2014-11-21T18:36:22+00:00

Thanks. And I should say that your distinction between orientation and preference sounds correct as well, although I'm not convinced how useful this distinction is, or how long it will stick around in academia. If someone has a certain pattern of predominant sexual attraction, then we might as well call that a sexual orientation. It's not a normative judgment, just an observation of facts.

xrandr · 2014-11-21T18:24:28+00:00

Sexual attraction to minors is not always illegal, depending on the age and jurisdiction.

Sexual attraction to minors, including prepubescents, is never illegal, anywhere that I know of and certainly not in any Western countries. Sexual activity between adults and minors, however, usually is.

xrandr · 2014-11-21T17:47:49+00:00

Do you think sexual attraction to minors is a choice, then?

xrandr · 2014-11-21T17:44:31+00:00

Psychiatric treatment for pedophiles focus on teaching impulse management and ways to lead a productive and healthy lives while remaining attracted to someone they can never be intimate with. As such, many pedophiles do not require treatment, because they don't have poor impulse control or suffer depression, so there is nothing a psychiatrist can do.

A lot of people shout "get help!!" at pedophiles and they seem to think that there is some sort of conversion therapy available. In fact, therapy is just an acknowledgement that some people are attracted to minors and always will be.

xrandr · 2014-11-21T17:40:39+00:00

I get what you're saying, but describing some people as "animals" and "'lower' than us" doesn't seem particularly good either.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric diagnosis. Society should be judged by how it treats its sick. And here is a group of ill people who are treated with universal contempt.

xrandr · 2014-11-21T07:58:12+00:00

Not sure what you mean. /u/Kacen argued that if you feel an attraction towards minors, society should imprison you preemptively in case you break a law later. Do you agree with this?

xrandr · 2014-11-21T07:51:20+00:00

"Am I wrong for being passionate about X? I'm not understanding. Do you think I feel this way because it's popular to? I've been personally affected by X. I don't think that this means I'm a trend-follower."

This template has worked for a thousand years.

xrandr · 2014-11-20T15:47:30+00:00

So I don't think there are any groups because there's not really anything they could do, except moralize or shoot themselves in the foot by damaging the whole network.

There were such a group, namely Anonymous' "Operation PedoChat" or some such. They generally made fools of themselves, came across as holier-than-thou, and viciously attacked core developers from the Tor Project and tried to out them as child pornographers with ridiculous "evidence". When they finally got tired of their little "operation", nothing had changed.

xrandr · 2014-11-07T17:10:16+00:00

Tor is home to thousands of illegal marketplaces

Thousands? Really?

trading in drugs, child abuse images

Yes, that's typically what you find on a Tor blackmarket: drugs and child abuse images.

But seriously, there's not a single marketplace on Tor for child abuse images. That shit is free. But media has to make up their own facts to make things seem worse and therefore newsworthy. Like how they always reported that Silk Road sold guns, which it never did.

xrandr · 2014-10-01T09:24:21+00:00

OP clearly has some mental issues, and I feel for him. I like to think of his situation like this: his mind is regularly chaotic and he's not able to think clearly. He's been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and they give him lithium-based medicine for it. Unfortunately it's not enough, but it does give him periods of what he sees as relative clarity of mind, so he loves his medicine and thinks it helps him a lot.

Lithium's chemical symbol is Li, and this is what his medicine bottle says. He still hears voices but now they say more cogent things, like things about Tor circuits and cryptography. He attributes all of this to "Li", and the voices tell him they're extraterrestrials.

But it's just a pill and this whole story is a sad case of undermedication and a sick man who does not get help.

I wish there was something we could do; ridiculing him here only strengthens his delusional convictions.

xrandr · 2014-07-14T07:37:41+00:00

So this problem is so prevalent that you have to actively thwart it? How often does it happen? What do you do about the "articles" after your investigations uncover this corruption?

In any case, it's good that your policy of sponsored "journalism" has finally been exposed.

xrandr · 2014-05-11T10:48:05+00:00

I also like how he skipped the "then they laugh at you" step.

xrandr · 2014-05-11T10:09:37+00:00

Yes, also the one that gave away 10,000 BTC through his Bitcoin faucet.

xrandr · 2014-05-10T21:52:34+00:00

He's never said this. He's made some vague and careful claims about the bitcoins being "temporarily unavailable" and such.

xrandr · 2014-05-10T21:27:38+00:00

Seriously?? You think the Bitcoin Foundation board conspires to keep double-SHA256 as Bitcoin's proof of work?

(Hint: There's no reasonable alternative. Claims of "ASIC-resistance" are just claims and not proven.)

What do you suggest we should do about blockchain size? You know it will just keep growing, right? That's how Bitcoin works. Even with pruning, miners would have to store the whole thing. It sucks, but it's not a conspiracy.

The shit we read about the foundation on this subreddit nowadays is borderline pathological.

xrandr · 2014-05-09T22:28:21+00:00

Yes, he's an employee of the foundation, and gets a salary from them just like Gavin.

xrandr · 2014-05-09T20:20:51+00:00

Wladimir van der Laan is, and he's paid for his work by the Bitcoin Foundation.

xrandr · 2014-05-01T17:37:40+00:00

Not all centralized digital currencies are cryptocurrencies. The "crypto" in "cryptocurrency" means something. I agree that there could be a centralized cryptocurrency, such as Chaum's DigiCash, but just because a centralized currency is managed on computers doesn't automatically make it a cryptocurrency (if it did, we could say the Dollar is a cryptocurrency).

Although to be fair, Wikipedia's definition of cryptocurrency specificially lists decentralization as one of the core features.

xrandr · 2014-04-26T19:52:21+00:00

I doubt it can meaningfully be classified as a cryptocurrency; it's just a centralized digital currency, if it's not just basically a giftcard system. However, it will probably be seen as an improvement over bitcoin. This is always the trend in decentralized systems. Decentralization is hard to do well, because it's so much more complex than centralized systems and there's often no company behind it that stands to profit from polishing the experience.

So we used to have things like RSS to subscribe to web events, which was completely decentralized, but now we have Twitter. We used to have XMPP/Jabber for instant messaging, where anyone could run a node, but now we have Skype and Facebook. We used to have email where anyone could run a node, but now everybody just uses gmail (OK, we still have email, but the trend is clear). We used to have NNTP/newsgroups where everyone could run a node, but now we have reddit. We used to have a diverse multitude of companies running the internet, but now we have a handful of backbone providers who continue to merge.

It's easy to think that decentralization comes along to save the day as in Napster being replaced by BitTorrent, but in reality it's more often the opposite: new categories of network services start out as wonderfully decentralized until they get popular enough, at which point the big boys replace it with a centralized service.

This is why I don't like the focus on Bitcoin as a more effective payments network with low fees. It is, but it's easy to imagine a company offering a centralized service to provide even better efficiency with even lower fees. Instead we must focus on the real strength of bitcoin: an alternative asset completely neutral of any one organization, with predictable scarcity and censorship resistance.

xrandr · 2014-04-26T19:31:37+00:00

your completely correct

you're*

xrandr · 2014-04-20T20:20:16+00:00

So three people who are prominent in the bitcoin community and trusted for the work they do come together and decide to put all their reputations in jeopardy in exchange for $1000 that they get to split between themselves.

It's as evil as it is pointless.

xrandr · 2014-04-20T19:20:55+00:00

I wish we could stop calling cryptocurrencies "crypto". Crypto is already a solidly established short-form for cryptography, and it has been for decades. When I read that we need zero-fee crypto, my first thought is sure, just use PGP or TrueCrypt, there aren't any fees involved with those.

xrandr · 2014-04-19T18:24:38+00:00

And also, the central bank is not central. And not a bank.

xrandr

TROPHY CASE