I looked briefly through the threads and found nothing on this, so I'm pretty sure this isn't a duplicate. (Plus it's pretty recent)

"Toronto police describe the Project Spade operation as one of the largest child porn busts they've ever seen."
Around 348 people were arrested after a large investigation revealed them all exchanging, watching, or posting child pornography. According to ABCNews (You can read the full article at http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canada-386-kids-rescued-child-porn-bust-20888292) officers recovered hundreds of thousands of horrifically explicit videos including children.

Apparently, Brian Way, 42, instructed people to post videos of children from 5-12 and give out the videos over his company to international viewers. 108 people were arrested in Canada, 76 in the USA, and more in other countries. More arrests are expected to be made, too.

Thoughts? (This is my first time making a news thread, please be gentle)

I have to wonder what "horrifically explicit" means.

Oi, "horrifically explicit". Makes you wonder just how many people are involved in this. Since it circulated in different countries, there could be hundreds upon hundreds of people.

Horrifically explicit, horrifically explicit... causing horror and then straightforward and clear? Probably shoulda put 'sexually explicit'.... I confuse myself sometimes.

No it wasn't you. It was in the article. But I mean, if they had to put "horrifically" just how bad was the treatment towards the kids? Like, were they tortured or was it just extremely explicit? Makes you wonder. The people involved in that are horrible either way.

The words 'horrifically explicit' weren't expressly in the article, since I usually summarize in my own words, but yeah, I assume they were both tortured and were subjected to some extremely explicit stuff. Whether it was sexual OR torturous, it's pretty sick stuff. I'm glad they're safe now.

1-800-633-9874

I don't really see anything wrong with people watching child porn, or children participating in sex, as long as they consent...

And really, why bust someone for watching and sharing it, unless there is proof they actually abused the child...

>>8 Only thing is, it's a lot harder for a child to consent and fully understand what they're doing - especially since these kids were from the ages of five to twelve. It's not always the case and some children really can understand these things, but you'd have to examine each child individually and evaluate them to really know and no-one wants to risk it.
Considering that almost four hundred children were rescued, the likelihood of even 50% of them being in a safe environment is pretty low. While I don't think child porn and the people who make it are necessarily bad, it's good to know that these kids will (hopefully) be put in a (probably) better environment.

Please let us not get into a whole other pedophilia argument; the last one was long and bloody.

Day/Dia are you a pedophilia

>>11 Now you're asking the important questions.

What exactly is a paedophilia? oyu mean a Pedophile?

nonononononononnonononononononononnonono

Guys, just please leave the "what is pedophilia" subject alone; there has been long and brutal debates about it in the past.

>>9 I wonder why everyone keeps bringing up the same flawed argument over and over again, as if it would be right.

>>15
It's because not everyone is mindless, sick morons who think it should be okay for kids to have sex with everyone just because they consent.

>>15
There is a reason kids have no say until they get 18 or over, because children don't know jack shit.

>>15 How the fuck is it flawed? Are you saying that everybody has the ability at a young age to decide what is really best for them? You should already know the answer to this.

Anyway, this the thread where the major pedophilia argument happened.

notion as old as time, and nature
may not support it fully but....ahem:


"old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"

>>15 It actually isn't really flawed. It operates on the simple fact that it's better to protect those that need protection and limit those who don't than it is to allow those who are mature enough by throwing the others to the wolves. You can either inconvenience one person, or ruin the life of another. Take your pick.

>>18 Rereading that thread is both painful and amusing. Honestly though, I think that anyone wanting to make a serious comment on this thread should have a skim through that one. Just to get a better understanding on the whole thing.

>>19 The real reason humans don't have the same sexual behaviors that many animals do (sex isn't much of a big deal and, in certain animals, it can be used solely for reproduction or as a leisure activity) is because of our social and moral norms. Additionally, that's completely incorrect because our reproductive systems fully develop quite a while after we are able to bleed. But I know that wasn't the point of what you were saying.

>>21 You base this off the assumption that people require protection, when really, in most cases, they don't. What's with the "everyone needs protection" and "everyone is a winner (unless we don't deem them such)" mindset?

I'd rather we break down the inconviencies and better the lives of more than one than to ruin the life of another to save a child or ruin the life of a child to save an adult. Why don't we approach things without flawed logic and work out what's best for both parties as opposed to just assuming one thing is right for one party and punishing another?

Oh, BTW, you should really clear up that "You can either inconvenience one person, or ruin the life of another," before someone interprets you saying, "You can either inconvenience the child, or ruin the life of an adult," like I just did above, granted that I gave leeway and put it both ways.

>>22 ...Really?
Oh, let's make rape legal then! Sure, some women don't like it, but what about the ones that are into that kind of thing? By stopping men from having sex with women whenever they want, you rob those women of their rights and make it harder for them to get raped. Why are we inconveniencing both the rapists and those who like to get raped?

Matter of fact, why is murder illegal? I mean, some people want to die anyway, right? We shouldn't inconvenience those people, just let serial killers do what they do best. Silly laws, trying to protect people and whatnot.

If you let a grown man (let's say 30), with a history of mental health conditions (because pedophiles often do) offer a ten year old all the candy he wants as long as he let's the pedophile touch him, do you know how many kids will say yes? Let's say that 3 out of 5 of those kids say "yes mister, I'd sure like that candy!" Now, about 0.1 percent of those kids are going to enjoy that old man touching them, now what about the rest? Paedophilia is an attraction towards prepubescent boys, that is the age of 11 min and 13 max. It isn't a myth that brains are still not even close to being fully developed then, it's fact. It's like giving a mentally handicapped person the rights to sell their organs on the black market.

Granted, we shouldn't be horrible to pedophiles, but why should we give them an open leash? Being molested is not a two way thing, that's why it's called "being molested" (hint: "Molested, to subject to unwanted or improper sexual activity). We aren't just giving the average Joe a basic freedom, we are giving mentally disturbed people access to young, fragile minds.

And seriously, please read over the thread I previously linked.

>>22 Solace is completely right. We should not treat pedophiles like criminals (assuming they haven't committed an offence, anyway), and we should do our best to understand them - but I'm not going to sit by and let some poor innocent children get fucked over for the rest of their lives because someone wants to get off. Sexual desire is something that can be controlled, and if people can't do that then they can fucking rot for all I care.
If pedophiles, rapists, and molesters want to be accepted, they can start by accepting that not everyone they want to have sex with wants to have sex with them.
Fact is, a lot of children can't make an informed decision on stuff like this.
What if I were to let an older guy molest my friend with Down's syndrome? She's sixteen, but she is mentally stuck as a ten year old. Would that be okay? No, it fucking wouldn't, because she can't make a proper decision because she isn't able to fully comprehend the situation like other people her age.
Pedophiles and children who want to have sex just have to go without. They won't be seriously affected by not having intercourse with someone, so they can quiet down and deal with it like the 'adult' they supposedly are.

I think we should just legalize all kinds of sexualities.

»23..sorry for my language,but why the hell would you say that?!!!!!!!!thats messed up..im sorry but those crimes are the kind of mind fuck that makes me not like america so much,but i have to deal with it cause i cant even afford something that costs 73 cents..im sorry but you shouldnt say things like that..

>>26 How did you seriously not understand what I was saying? I was using it sarcastically to demonstrate my point. I have come across some uncomprehending people but that sets a new bar.

Oh god yes. I love it when these arguments light up and cause the whole site to burn for a while.

>>26 Uhh.. What? You seem to be a little to young to be on the internet.

>>26 really? you are apologizing for saying hell? I have said a whole lot worse with a single word than you probably have in a sentence.

In all seriousness though, you need to grow the fuck up first sprout, then come back and give a debatable, yet educated, opinion.

>>29 now now, language doesn't constitute maturity or age.. If it did, I'd like to believe it tells how young someone is, rather than how old. Hearing someone say something as [citation needed] as this is about as cringeworthy as watching a boy give an orphan puppy a Glasgow smile. Still, I agree with you.

Pedophiles are just that. Pedophiles. They're human yet they abandon humanity in order to satisfy their sexual lust. In that moment, they are no longer human. They are making a conscious decision to betray the natural trust that every man has in each other. Even if you say such trust exists, you trust that while walking down the street In your neighborhood, a man won't pull out a bomb and kill you.

Personally, someone who can't keep their emotions in check (not bottled) require sympathy to be looked down upon them.. Such sympathy would be a lifetime of seclusion away from society. Mental correction through 18 hours of a documentary of "why pedophilia is bad" while being strapped to a chair with your eyes forced open seems good.. You'll feed them and send them to bed in the 19th hour and they'll wake up again to repeat. Once they memorize the movie, word for word, they'll be allowed to live in a sheltered environment with cardboard cutouts of children for a year. I suppose if no semen is traced inside the artificial environment, they can move back to the city with a shock collar and a blue dot. Through correction by electric shock, the man will be forced to never think of children in such a light. If suspected that the collar is removed, they will be taken back for more programming.

If you want to look at the world from a satirical standpoint, at least. In the current world, the alternative would be a cold cell. No, don't kill them but I wouldn't bat an eye if they allowed the victims parents to suggest castration within reasonable circumstances.

>>30 Just saying, but someone who 'abandons their humanity in order to satisfy their sexual lust' is a child molester/rapist. A pedophile is just someone who's sexually attracted to children.
We've already gone over this. Get with the program, yo.

>>31 Pedophilia refers more to the action as a Pedophile is one whom is involved in pedophilia. A boy that likes watching porn but doesnt plan on raping anyone isn't a sex offender, so why should a pedophile that hasn't done anything and doesn't plan on it be considered a pedophile? No, I'm not defending pedophilia and I never will. No, I'm not even arguing that they can be considered innocent. What I am arguing, however, is that a preemptive action does more worse than good. The most we can do for suspected pedophiles, now, is give them therapy.

"Get with the program, yo."

>>32 You just flew past my point and blasted off into space. You looked at what I wrote, whispered "fuck that, do whatever", and typed out that totally irrelevant response.

>>32, >>33 is correct.
As a pedophile, who hates molesters as much as anyone else, I should know!

A pedophile is the attraction, molestation/rape is the act. Not all pedophiles are molesters and tbh it is quite disheartening to see people being dehumanized and lumped together. Whether it is sexuality, unconscious attraction, religion, race, ~anything. We are all people, and who we are is determined by our actions; not uncontrollable psychological tenancies, dispositions, or preferences.

Many pedophiles, including myself, hate and condemn molesters and are disgusted by their actions.

I personally love hearing this kind of news! It gets me so upset that things like this happen in the world that if I let myself think about it too much I get physically sick, wishing there was some way I could actively help to stop it. I'm extremely thankful that these children were rescued and that most of the perverted fucks that did this were caught. I try and clarify the difference between a pedophile and a rapist, so that more people aren't dehumanized and they know that there are others like them.

It is scary when you begin to think that the only other people who have this attraction are all horrible rapists and murderers. As a pedo, you here everyone (often including close friends) talking about how a pedophile did this and a pedophile did that, in reference to disgusting and horrific events with no distinction between a molester and a pedophile, while you know that you yourself have this attraction and feel even more disjoined from what little sense of comfort you had. As this poison is thrown around, people begin to wounder "Well if all of them are like that... Am I going to be like that?". Some people even resort to suicide once they come to believe that becoming a rapist/murderer/psychopath is their only future~ thinking that some day down the line, their own body and mind will change against them and they will go insane as they slowly turn into what they hate most.

Everyone; please do not go around yelling about pedophiles and molesters as if they were the same thing. Those words are NOT synonymous, and they carry a lot of weight. Try and keep an open mind and refrain from dehumanizing people.
--Sorry for the long post.

>>34 Uhh.. Wait.. Did you just say you were a pedophile? I feel like you should lead with that instead of glossing over it like that xD

This topic got derailed quickly though

>>35 Well at the very beginning "as a pedophile...."(>>34) I figured that would be seen as 'leading with it' XD

And yes; this has gotten very off topic.

>>35
>>36

He shouldn't lead with being a pedophile at all in my honest to stop opinion. Exactly where is the line drawn in that hwead of yours to justify it being okay to have sexual thoughts towards a child?

Yeah, you might not be acting upon them, but you're trying to glorify being one, as being okay just so long as they don't "act" upon it.

>>37
Head*

>>37 He can't control his sexual orientation, it's just who he is. Managing to suppress it is most likely the best they can do.

>>37 If he isn't hurting anyone, I cannot possibly imagine what kind of a problem it could be. He wasn't glorifying it, he was trying to educate people who think every pedophile in the world is a monster that molests children in secret. However, it seems some can never be swayed from their beliefs.

I never said they can or can't be, but that isn't something one should ever admit to. It's not like being gay, this is far different.

Firstly there's the growth of these children who have yet to grow into their bodies, the next is the over all age, and their mentality. I can't possibly see how someone can be sexually attracted to a child. There's no logical reason.

Doesn't mean it's not happening or not possible, but you can't say it's perfectly normal. There's obviously some mental problem.

>>41 Saying people shouldn't admit to who and what they are is like trying not to speak Voldemort's name. It's just dumb and counter-active. Saying "fudge" just makes it more obvious that you wanted to swear.

I honestly believe that no one should ever be told not to admit to something. Keeping it bottled up (whatever it is~ from sexuality, a secret shoe fetish, to bullies at school) doesn't help anyone, and more often than not; psychologically harms the person in question.

I do, however, agree that there is no logical reason for the sexual attraction. It is irrational, and goes against the very purpose of evolution. This is very strange, but many other attractions and fetish are similar in there "wat"-ness. I do hope that there is more psyche research into these subjects though.

As for there being some mental problem; pedophilia is currently considered a mental disorder- however due to the taboo of the subject there are very few people who have participated in studies willingly and due to this, the large majority were convicted sex offenders. I believe that is why the studies may be largely inaccurate, however I obviously have a bias.

>>42

Think about this. What good does it do to the person, and the people being told, that you're telling them you want to have sex with children? Because being sexually attracted automatically means you want to fuck a child.

Again, it's not like homosexuality in the slightest. What good is going to come from it? Do you expect by admitting it, and allowing others to as well, that it's going down the same road as being gay, where they will have rights to have sec with kids?

I'm not trying to be mean, I'm trying to understand what good you think comes from it? People can admit it, but most people, rightfully admits it in a Therapy session, not just to everyday, passing people.

In my eyes those who openly admits it, wants to change it so they can fight for their own rights. Not everyone, obviously, but still.

>>43 I would say that is a huge, misinformed assumption.

I can now understand why you have been so against it all this time, since I also do not think pedophiles should have any kind of right or privilege to have sexual intercourse with children. However, I would not say all people that admit to it want to make it legal.

Consider drug addicts, for example. The first step in recovery is always admitting you have a problem. People that admit they have a drug problem in this instance are definitely not trying to get drugs legal, they are trying to get help.

Pedophiles should admit they have sexual attractions to children so they can get help as well. It isn't a problem having an attraction, but it is acting on it. So, someone admitting they are a pedophile is essential to them getting alternative satisfaction for their sexual urges. It is also essential for education on the topic, much like when people thought all gays were molesters of young boys.

I really can't see why you assumed he was trying to fight for legality, since he never mentioned anything of the sort.

>>43 Once again, having an attraction and actually acting on it are two completely different things. No one should be put in jail for -wanting- to kill someone, but people should be put in jail for -TRYING- to kill someone. Get it?

Similar to homosexuality (or race, or gender,) I have no control over what I find attractive~ I'm not saying it's a sexual orientation, I'm saying it's an unconscious fact of my existence.

I don't go blurting it out all the time, but when a situation arises, similar to the topic of the conversation that was going on; I have no problem saying I am a pedophile.

Why I do it, rather than keeping it held up like a dark-and-naughty secret, is for one; is because I know what it's like to do that, and it isn't very nice- and for two; There are many that feel how I used to feel (as described in >>34) and that isn't very nice either- and for three; I try to clarify that the words "pedophile" and "molester" are NOT synonyms.

I'm not saying (>>43)"I want to have sex with children", because; -=I=-, the thing that is me that is conscious, doesn't want to have sex with children. I have an attraction, but I don't want to act on it~ in fact it is quiet literately the VERY LAST THING I would ever want to do.

I guess you didn't get it the first time so let me spell it out;

I COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY CONDEMN THE ACTIONS OF ANYONE WHO WANTS TO HAVE, OR HAS, HAD A SEXUAL RELATION WITH A CHILD

To me, it feels just as wrong as it does to you. The only difference is that I happen to have an attraction~ but that doesn't mean I think anyone should EVER act on that attraction~ regardless of a given scenario.

>>44
I didn't say he was fighting for rights, I'm just saying most would think that by admitting to it, they might be trying to fight to also make it an okay act.

Not everyone thinks that way and not all admit it for that reason.

>>45

Still, how can you say you have a sexual attraction to a child yet don't wish to have sex with the child?

I am not saying you will act on it just because it's there, but a sexual attraction also implies the want to have sexual contact . What else is a sexual attraction there for?

>>47 Sexual attraction can be incredibly primal and basic. E.G. I might find my English teacher incredibly attractive. I don't want to and wont ever have sex with her, however, because I don't like her as a person, she's an older teacher and it it's never going to happen.

It just means that his instincts are telling him one thing, while his human conscious is saying another.

>>47 I'm trying to get the point across that there is a difference between impulse and conscious choice. That may not be the correct word, but I don't have any clue what is.

"I want" to order out for a pizza, but "I choose" to make a healthy dinner, because "I want" to be somewhat healthy.

err how else can I say this?
unconsciously, "I want" to have sex with children, but consciously "I want" to never ever do that~ EVER.

I suppose they are both valid "wants" but one comes from who-knows-where and the other comes from me, and then a choice is made based on those wants. I act on the one I choose rather than the one that just pops in my head. One is an impulse, one is a choice. You can't choose what you feel but you can choose how that feeling effects you and what you do because of it.

Conscious vs. Unconscious.
Aye... this is hard to explain. I hope you get it.

....or what >>48 said.

LOL! That's much more concise.

>>46 I don't think Alaestor thought the act was okay, since he explicitly said he condemned the actions. I think he was trying to get across that just having feelings isn't wrong. So, having feelings is an okay 'act', but acting upon them is not.

>>51

I personally don't think Alaestor even likes having the feelings after talking to him.

>>52 Correct; I dont- and that is representative of a vast majority of other pedos as well. Having a feeling is "okay" in the sense that it doesn't define whether a person is good or bad~ but I've come to accept it as a part of me and just move on. Ofcourse, if I had a linux terminal prompt to my brain~ I would most likely "rm -rf pedo.perl"

I think we should let this topic die because It's been bumped a lot by this semi-off-topic convo/debate/thing...
/Sage/

>>53

And it still pretty relevant given the actual topic. Just because we go off topic doesn't mean we decide if it should die.

>>54 I guess you have a point xD