User Controls
Which type of child abuse do you consider to be the worst?
-
2018-08-01 at 7:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Some CP production compensates the parents of the children involved and represents an economic opportunity for that kid's family.
Fun fact: Reba McEntire’s hit single Fancy, originally written and recorded by Bobbie Gentry in 1969, was about a mother who sexually solicited her daughter to older men in an effort to overcome poverty.
Here’s your one chance Fancy don’t let me down. -
2018-08-01 at 7:31 PM UTCjinx
-
2018-08-01 at 7:32 PM UTCshit
-
2018-08-01 at 7:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Lanny, who exactly wins in that scenario?
The consumer who pays twice as much for sneakers, or the child who now has no income/gets a more dangerous job?
The child who doesn't have to work and can get an education. If the premise here is that there's no way to sustain and educate a child without pushing them into the workforce then the solution is not to make a children-sink in the form of industry and continue to pour children into it.
Like what if I made an organization that harvested organs and limbs from children for money. I could use the same defense "but if I don't pay these children to have their bodyparts removed what is going to become of them?!? How will the consumer get their kid-organs now?". -
2018-08-01 at 7:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The child who doesn't have to work and can get an education. If the premise here is that there's no way to sustain and educate a child without pushing them into the workforce then the solution is not to make a children-sink in the form of industry and continue to pour children into it.
Like what if I made an organization that harvested organs and limbs from children for money. I could use the same defense "but if I don't pay these children to have their bodyparts removed what is going to become of them?!? How will the consumer get their kid-organs now?".
so your saying that poor and underprivileged people in developing and 3rd world countries shouldnt enjoy the joy of falling in love and procreate as can people in the first world can ...
is that it ??? -
2018-08-01 at 7:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader so your saying that poor and underprivileged people in developing and 3rd world countries shouldnt enjoy the joy of falling in love and procreate as can people in the first world can …
is that it ???
If the result of that action is having kids which can't be supported except by depriving them of an education to work and putting them at risk of being maimed or dieing then yes, those people should not have children and when they do the state should intervene to ensure a basic level of opprotunity is available to that child. Just like in the first world. -
2018-08-01 at 8 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The child who doesn't have to work and can get an education. If the premise here is that there's no way to sustain and educate a child without pushing them into the workforce then the solution is not to make a children-sink in the form of industry and continue to pour children into it.
Like what if I made an organization that harvested organs and limbs from children for money. I could use the same defense "but if I don't pay these children to have their bodyparts removed what is going to become of them?!? How will the consumer get their kid-organs now?".
Except that it kind of is the better alternative. You can have a wholesome life with some happiness in it while in poverty, so long as you feel safe and have a security in knowing where your next meal comes from.
When there isn't enough to go around, things start to head into the likes of Venezuela and El Salvador where the childrens and other young people who are without take from those who have
By force. Through gangs.
Children gangs.
Children gangs create an unsafe environment that pits children against children, and children against adults, and every combination thereof in a lawless chaotic jungle, where there is no telling when or where the next meal will come from.
I view that as a less preferable alternative to long laborious days. -
2018-08-01 at 8:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny If the result of that action is having kids which can't be supported except by depriving them of an education to work and putting them at risk of being maimed or dieing then yes, those people should not have children and when they do the state should intervene to ensure a basic level of opprotunity is available to that child. Just like in the first world.
These states likely do not have enough "state" in them to carry out these measures. -
2018-08-01 at 8:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill Oh wow, HTS is opinionated? At least he has opinions of his own.
No one owes you anything and you need to learn how to discuss in a civilised manner.
This is a touchy issue for you, very emotive I notice. Why?
^^^^^^^^
Fixed for accuracy.
Personally I believe no pedophiles, fans of pedophiles or supporters of this crime and life style should have any voice in preventing child abuse...they can't be cured and even the few that helped in the end reversed back to an even stronger mental illness.
Whether kids are abused psychologically, sexually, for cheaper labor, used by the media or forced into porn and prostitution they should be protected at all cost...if not it's not a civilized democracy and has no benefits for society.
Corruption in the church and poltical system should be destroyed and the parasites jailed with a strong judicial process. A good example of mental, physical and psychological abuse can be seen in the case of Richard K aka The Iceman...he started with killing cats, moved to killing neighborhood kids he felt were bullies and eventually becoming a hitman murdering over 200 victims. The You Tube vids are interesting and show how dysfunctional parents can mold a child to destroy him. Clearly once you add sexual abuse it can be worse ruining a whole life.
I would venture a guess that even many slow fakes have been brainwashed and manipulated by the socialist media, leftist teachers and even their own parents...ironically many are unemployed, live with their parents and are easily swayed by cultist groups like ANTIFA and BLM. They simple hate Trump for no logical reasons and similar to Naxi propaganda. -
2018-08-01 at 8:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny If the result of that action is having kids which can't be supported except by depriving them of an education to work and putting them at risk of being maimed or dieing then yes, those people should not have children and when they do the state should intervene to ensure a basic level of opprotunity is available to that child. Just like in the first world.
where would the state in that 3rd world country get the money required for your altruism ???
third world countries are they way they are becos of the exploitation and the rape they got from the first worlders. -
2018-08-01 at 8:18 PM UTCAgain, I bring up the organ harvesting scenario. If it's truly economically impossible to support a population without subjecting them to certian conditions (e.g. selling organs or their children) then first world organizations shouldn't be expoiting that poverty for profit, the population should diminish. In most cases it should fall to first world countries have largely created the condition of poverty and subsequently exploited it for profit to clean up the mess it made, but even if that's never going to happen that doesn't justify continued expoitation.
-
2018-08-01 at 8:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader where would the state in that 3rd world country get the money required for your altruism ???
What good would money do the third world? They'd just steal it and do nothing.
Their problem is corruption, low social trust, and a lack of economic integration and cohesion. They need fascism, which is the only system that has worked well in the third world historically. And you don't need a lot of money to enact a fascistic regime.
And yes, you'd pot a lot of people, that's a feature of fascism, not a flaw. -
2018-08-01 at 8:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Some CP production compensates the parents of the children involved and represents an economic opportunity for that kid's family. Does that make it OK? Of course not, which is why other economic expoitation of children in factories or mines is also unacceptable. Let's threaten anyone who buys a nike product with life imprisonment, which actually means being raped and then killed, that way we'll eleminate the market for the ouput of these industries that exploit children.
there is a bigger picture going on with this issue which i will now explain. it was to point this out that was the reason i actually made this fred in the first place.
Its often what people don't do, rather than what they do do, that can show you where peoples real intentions lie. when it comes to child sexual abuse the government and the media make a really big deal about the issue to the point of over-zealousness. the media constantly report pedo issues and stir up mass-hysteria among the population. the government is constantly coming up with more over the top legislation supposedly designed to combat child sexual abuse. they've even passed laws to prosecute their citizens who commit sexual abuse on children in foreign countries, despite the act happening out of their jurisdiction and even if committed in a country where there are no age of consent laws, so even if it wasn't a crime in the country where it was committed. the thing is that legislation and media campaigns against sexual exploitation can only achieve so much. if somebody really is determined to sexually abuse a child then no amount of legislation or public awareness of the issue will stop it. it can be prosecuted after the fact, but preventative measures can only go so far. plus for many child sex abusers the attraction surrounds the 'forbidden fruit' aspect, so the over-zealousness just serves to make children even more attractive to the perverts, who will then want to abuse them even more.
when it comes to child physical abuse committed by the use of child labor, the governments may have banned the practice in western countries, but have done little to prevent it happening in foreign countries. and although it will get mentioned in the media from time to time, it gets nothing like the relentless and constant exposure that child sexual abuse gets.
so why is that do you think?
a continuous and relentless media campaign against child exploitation in sweat shops, on the same scale of the sexual abuse media campaigns, would create more public awareness and sway public opinion to become heavily against it, just as they are with child sexual abuse now. they could easily name and shame the companies that take advantage of foreign sweat shops and child labor giving the public the option to easily boycott those companies products, forcing them to discontinue the practice. the government could easily pass new legislation that would enable them to bring the companies that benefit from the misery of children in foreign countries to account. once the public where mostly aware and boycotting the products and the companies, the problem would near disappear or at the very least would be vastly reduced.
so why don't they do this?
they are very quick to apply it to sexual abuse against children, so surely they care about children and want to see them safe, don't they?
or do they?
it doesn't make any sense at all, does it?
it does make sense however if you consider a few things.
-that the government and media are really both tools of and controlled by the industrial elite.
-that the government care nothing about protecting the people it supposedly serves, and certainly not about anyone abroad including children, and are only really concerned with the power they can garner from being 'seen as the protector', and the value they can benefit from doing so.
-that the media fear-monger in order to scare the population with threats they would deem beyond the ordinary mans control, so that the ordinary man would then look to the government as his protector and saviour. in short a protection racket.
-that they have no interest in protecting anybody if there is more money to be gained from allowing harm to come to them instead.
the fact is that when it comes to child sexual abuse, this is an issue that can be used to scare the shit out of parents in western countries. money and power can be gained by over emphasizing the danger to the population who, once convinced, will then look to you to keep them safe from 'the threat'. once they've been convinced it is a danger that is hugely out of control they will happily pay extra taxes if it means it will keep their children safe. they will not complain if those taxes are spent on resources to combat the problem and will put little thought into the fact that the very people who are over exaggerating the threat to them are the same people running the companies that supply the resources to the police and other government agencies that are supposedly combatting it. making a big deal about child sex abuse turns out to be a very convenient way of putting tax payers money straight into your pocket and having the tax payers thank you for doing so. i mean who cares if thousands of peoples lives are ruined in the process, they're just pawns so they don't matter, right?
but when it comes to the physical abuse of children in far away countries, its really very hard to scare your own citizens with threats to other peoples kids. however it is a convenient way to increase profits by making all those goods you supply to the police and justice departments in the sweat shops, as well as all the other goods your companies produce. if anyone complains to the government about the issue they can just claim that its out of their jurisdiction and so there is little they can do to prevent it.
its when you look at things like this, the contradictions in the system, that you realize its not what its really cracked up to be.
. -
2018-08-01 at 8:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Lanny, who exactly wins in that scenario?
The consumer who pays twice as much for sneakers, or the child who now has no income/gets a more dangerous job?
certainly not the greedy fat cats who would then have to actually take a pay cut to their fat profits for a change in order to keep competing, instead of exploiting others like they normally do. you know like how normal businesses do.
.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-08-01 at 9:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny If it's truly economically impossible to support a population without subjecting them to certian conditions (e.g. selling organs or their children) then first world organizations shouldn't be expoiting that poverty for profit, the population should diminish.
Let the children die 2k18 !!! ! -
2018-08-01 at 9:52 PM UTC
