Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
THIS IS THE NEWS.
His defence doesent seem very strong. Thing's arnt looking good for him...
YEAH I KILLED HIM
But I don't want to be called a murderer
seeing child pornography doesn't make you a paedophile any more than viewing homosexual porn would make you a homosexual.
Not sure why you would if you weren't, though.
but technically there's a possibly not a paedophile.
taken to its most ridiculous nadir
see my comment below.
I'm sure people have seen such stuff when surfing for 'legal' porn...You'd hope they'd report it to the authorities but probably most just close it down in disgust. The point is that seeing it doesn't make you a paedophile and that's what Langham's trying to say.
Now I'd say he fucking well SOUNDS like a paedophile on the basis of this evidence but that's not the same thing at all.
Nor the one I was making.
Essentially I guess it's very hard to prove, without concrete evidence of someone sexually abusing kids or knocking one out over such videos, that someone is a paedophile.
I've seen some dodgy stuff on line. That shaky dubious footage of 'Saddam getting hanged' for example. That doesn't mean I like watching films of people getting killed.
The demand is caused by totally different factors. I would guess most people make such films for themselves in first place, because they're clearly very sick fucks.
I mean, if I see a video on line of Saddam being hanged and then I stumble across a video of a child porno (this is a fucking grim subject actually. I feel quite ill) then how does that encourage more of the latter?
Do you reckon people who make such stuff just see it as a 'job', then? That they go "Oh, people seem to dig the paedo shit. Okay, cancel those big-breasted 17 year olds tomorrow and go and kidnap some little boys"? It just seems unlikely.
But then I really don't even know what this stuff is like or who makes it, so I guess it could well be like that. :(
"an adult who is sexually attracted to children"
It's awfully difficult to have concrete evidence of a concept such as attraction.
However he is not being tried as a paedophile, he is being tried for crimes.
The man is clearly an idiot
I'm pointing out his argument, not necessarily agreeing with it.
In any case, the human desire to see stuff they find disgusting is interesting.
http://www.rotten.com is still going strong; http://www.ogrish.com ran for a long time with footage of things like soldiers killing each other brutally (allegedly) and people getting killed in terrible accidents or on-screen suicides... The 'nice' side of this could be exampled by extreme horror films and what they tend to show to a willing audience.
He's clearly an idiot or gets off on paedophilic porn, or just gets off on horrible things. Only one of those three would actually make him a paedophile, though. Maybe he'd rather be branded a sick fuck than a paedo?
over what he should be branded
Is http://www.rotten.com illegal?
Is http://www.ogrish.com illegal?
He broke the law or he didn't. I don't give a fuck about his ridiculous attempts at excuses
Can you actually be tried for being a paedophile? I assume not. You can only be tried for engaging in such acts or for owning illegal material (such as this).
But clearly if convicted wouldn't he go on the paedophile register? Won't the newspapers brand him as such.
And yes, I'm sure Ogrish held material that would be illegal in some territories. I don't know, though. Rotten.com is full of disgusting stuff. Yeah it's not illegal but then neither is a 16 year old going out with 50 year old, but to my mind the legal age there isn't actually the point.
is no such thing as the 'paedophile register', and no court can help what he is branded, unless the judge uses the term in his summing up.
I thought they'd been putting some list together to appease the Daily Mail readers.
Of course the court can't help, but presumably if he was found not guilty then any paper suggesting he was a paedophile would lose a court case?
they just go on the main Sex Offenders Register.
I didn't study law!
in shitting crikey are those 2 websites?
is a sort of online Bizarre magazine. Basically pictures of stuff like suicides, accident and murder victims, or people suffering from really quite grim medical complaints.
Didn't read my original post where I mentioned them. Why do people go and watch horror films depicting characters getting raped, tortured and killed?
Why do people rubberneck like mad when they drive past road accidents?
USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN, FFS!
aren't illegal though
I was pointing out that people have a habit of viewing terrible things.
However, murder IS illegal so viewing the results of it, or viewing 'mock' versions of it on screen in a movie is shaving it fine.
Anyway, my point was that I do not find it unbelieveable that someone would have such films on their computer to watch and not be turned on by them...just very very unlikely.
(or trying to)
Does it count as winding me up if I just assumed you were a great deal more stupid than I'd hitherto thought? :D
Who views child porn and why they do it? I mean it's hardly something you could do research into is it?
My understanding that in general the psychological reasons for and the psychological effects of watching internet pornography (any, not child pornography in general) is still a very unknown - and increasingly relevant - area of psychological research.
Unless you're Pete Townshend or Chris Langham. :D
horror films tend to be pretty tame and you can comfort yourself with the fact that it's fiction.
to choose to view that sort of stuff is a sign of mental illness, frankly...
People view things like that for many different reasons. Are you saying that everyone who viewed the beheading videos out of curiosity (I wasn't one of them incidentally) is mentally ill?
it was horrible
and you'll no longer be classed as mentally ill in JacobJones's world.
strange for not wanting to look at dismembered limbs or people being decapitated?
but you can't group the whole world as
"weird" or not depending on what they have looked at irrespective of the context, purpose, duration etc.
I mean you can but it is incredibly facile
I would agree with that except with specific regard to people who enjoy watching beheadings
We're complaining that you're saying anyone who does must be mentally ill, as if you're somehow a blueprint of the clearest mental health so any deviation from that is 'illness'.
mentally ill was pretty flippant. It wasn't supposed to a diagnosis.
that anyone who rubbernecks at a particularly vicious looking accident is mentally ill.
I thought he was referring to people who watch sick stuff on rotten.com or whatever.
incidental to your everyday life ... looking at websites which compile stuff infinitely more disgusting and disturbing is just fucking weird...
I incidentally came across the beheading when I was looking for normal porn.
But it is disturbing what you can wander onto when you're looking for erotic stuff on t'web.
when you were a teenager were you never intrigued by disgusting or "weird" things?
Some people (often when they are young) like to transgress conventional boundaries of taste.
I very much doubt visiting websites like those mentioned is a viable marker of any crime.
"I very much doubt visiting websites like those mentioned is a viable marker of any crime."
Hang on, where did I say it was?
but this is a commonly held (and utterly unproven) assumption about nasty images, violent computer games, horror films etc.
In that case, what do you think are the downsides or side-effects of being "fucking weird"? Presumably there are some or you wouldn't mind.
there be negative side-effects which impact upon me?
kind of implied that it bothered you in some way
But I'd just about stop short of banning them.
I wouldn't be bothered by someone stuffing an aubergine up their arse and having a wank. But enjoying the acute suffering of others on video ... I just don't get it and would regard anyone who willingly did so as, just, a cunt really...
it is human nature
i simply find it utterly bizarre that anyone would regularly visit a website that compiles that stuff....
I'm just saying people DO visit it.
it might be, depending on what is it.
the pornography laws here are strange.
to overcome psycological traumas?
'i thought they were just midgets'?
definitely not looking good Chris...
"a better man"?
As opposed to an underage girl?
looking at child porn somehow helped him get over it...
"It was those sexy kids, your honour! THEY should be in the dock *cries*"
but on current form I can hardly wait
is the viewing charge.
95% of the images were underage girls....he claims he was kind of resolving his own past trauma and was kind of empathing? Was he a girl when he was younger then?
it's not looking good for him, is it?
he seems to keep changing his story.
i dunno. i don't even know who he is... but for some reason i still feel sorry for him.