UK man sentenced for having manga images of children

[Citizen66]

I didn't accuse anyone, I said there's probably one or two.... An accusation means that you would name someone.... Which you did in addressing me directly.

I said you must have paedo art. You haven't denied it.

 

[sim667]

This is Sweetie, the CGI Filipina who 1,000 men webcammed with asking her to perform sex acts. Would you say they've done nothing wrong really because no children were harmed and it's not real?

Assuming you don't think this is okay, how is this different?

i discussed this earlier, and said that he thought it was real and proactively tried to solicit webcam sex with the controller..... totally different kettle of fish

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Child protection would imply that a child needs protecting.... He hasn't watched anything of actual children. A child may need protecting yes, but as it stands he's not caused the abuse of an actual existing child.

How do you know? How do you know he hasn't passed on the images to someone who went on to rape a child?

 

[sim667]

I said you must have paedo art. You haven't denied it.

Because im not going to rise to your bait or trolling.

 

[sim667]

How do you know? How do you know he hasn't passed on the images to someone who went on to rape a child?

I don't. Thats not for me to prove

 

[sim667]

No, he was convicted of possessing prohibited images of children. Twice.

No he was convicted of having pseudo images of children. Twice.

 

[Citizen66]

Because im not going to rise to your bait or trolling.

We'll stop accusing others of having bomb making instructions on their hard drives then.

 

[sim667]

I didn't accuse anyone.... i havent said you, or named anyone.

you named me.

 

[butchersapron]

i discussed this earlier, and said that he thought it was real and proactively tried to solicit webcam sex with the controller..... totally different kettle of fish

No real victim. No matter what the intention. Let it go.

 

[trashpony]

i discussed this earlier, and said that he thought it was real and proactively tried to solicit webcam sex with the controller..... totally different kettle of fish

I don't think it is. If these men had known that this was a cgi and got her to perform sex acts, would that have been okay?

 

[Dr_Herbz]

I don't. Thats not for me to prove

I'd rather he was locked up before the fact.

 

[Citizen66]

I didn't accuse anyone.... i havent said you, or named anyone.

you named me.

I named the pseudonym sim667 and it wasn't a direct accusation. Get over yourself ffs.

 

[sim667]

No real victim. No matter what the intention. Let it go.

So wait.... you're now saying that its fine for this australian man to try and solicit sex with a child because its a fake child.

Fuck me, way to go on the U-turn

 

[sim667]

I'd rather he was locked up before the fact.

He's only getting 9 months.... he'll be out in no time on good behaviour I bet.

 

[Citizen66]

So wait.... you're now saying that its fine for this australian man to try and solicit sex with a child because its a fake child.

Fuck me, way to go on the U-turn

Sarcasm detector on the blink?

 

[butchersapron]

So wait.... you're now saying that its fine for this australian man to try and solicit sex with a child because its a fake child.

Fuck me, way to go on the U-turn

No. I'm suggesting that this must be your position to remain consistent.

 

[sim667]

I named the pseudonym sim667 and it wasn't a direct accusation. Get over yourself ffs.

So diggin yourself out of a hole by saying you name pseudonym.... so you weren't accusing me, you were accusing an interpretation of me? Hypocritical doesn't cover that in the context of this thread.

 

[Spymaster]

No he was convicted of having pseudo images of children.

Is this an image of a child?

 

[sim667]

No. I'm suggesting that this must be your position to remain consistent.

You've just said exactly the opposite to what you've been arguing this entire time? you're the one being inconsistent?!

 

[Citizen66]

So diggin yourself out of a hole by saying you name pseudonym.... so you weren't accusing me, you were accusing an interpretation of me? Hypocritical doesn't cover that in the context of this thread.

How could I accuse you when I don't even know who you are? I'm digging myself out of no hole, I said it followed the same logic of you saying people on here would have bomb making instructions bizarrely on the basis of there being 'lots of people here'. Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's a pretty serious discussion to piss about over like you are doing.

 

[Citizen66]

You've just said exactly the opposite to what you've been arguing this entire time? you're the one being inconsistent?!

Christ you're dim.

 

[butchersapron]

You've just said exactly the opposite to what you've been arguing this entire time? you're the one being inconsistent?!

No. The position above which you take as mine is me putting what you must logically argue. Or throw over your whole case.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

All very well, but speeding is an accepted norm, with police being told to have a tolerance of plus 10% + 2 mph.... as discussed on here just the other day.

Falling out of a twentieth floor window is harmless too....until the ground hits you

 

[Dr_Herbz]

You've just said exactly the opposite to what you've been arguing this entire time? you're the one being inconsistent?!

Are you related to Bungle, perchance?

 

[sim667]

Is this an image of a child?

Its a visual interpretation of a child in the form of a digital image.... I'd imagine porbably created in paint..... But it is not necessarily a record of an encounter with a child, (although in this case I imagine a child would have sat for this image for sometime, judging by the realism achieved in the painting).

Is this what all this is about, pedantry about terminology...and image of a child isn't always necessarily a record of a child in a place at a time.


As far as I can tell the images the man in question in the articles has not been charged with a photographic record of an encounter with a real life child, but he has been charged with a manga and tomb raider styled visual interpretation of a child, but it has not been proved that a child was present at the time of making those images.- Is this an incorrect statement? Am I missing something here you've all read?

 

[sim667]

No. The position above which you take as mine is me putting what you must logically argue. Or throw over your whole case.

Youve changed what youve claimed throughout the whole thread, and now tell me I'm wrong.

 

[8115]

No. The position above which you take as mine is me putting what you must logically argue. Or throw over your whole case.

No, because they thought it was a real child. In the case if the images, the idea would be someone knows it's not.

Sorry to be pedantic.

 

[Citizen66]

You're blind to nuances. Maybe it's because it's in text or you're being deliberately disingenuous.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

you weren't accusing me, you were accusing an interpretation of me? .

Oh the irony...

 

[sim667]

No, because they thought it was a real child. In the case if the images, the idea would be someone knows it's not.

Sorry to be pedantic.

Exactly!