foreveryoung Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said: It’s not a conversation to have about Edwards. It wasn’t being discussed directly about Edwards. It was a discussion about a hypothetical scenario whereby an unsuspecting individual has received an illegal image without wanting or expecting it. That was what was being discussed. Not a defence of Hew Edwards. It is not difficult to comprehend. You might think it’s far fetched, but I can imagine a situation where some laddish banter along the lines of “Hey I ****ed the Olsen twins before they were famous!” (or whatever, “when’s there grass on the pitch, let’s play”) type shite leads to someone thinking that that individual making the crass joke is sufficiently lacking a moral compass in that regard, and hey, maybe they’d also be interested in this photo collection... As I say, you might think it’s far fetched, but equally, way more far fetched things have happened. And as for “why would someone want to imagine themselves in that situation”, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen posters on here being asked to put themselves in the position of the recently bereaved parents in Southport…why would one want to do that? So, we’re being asked to imagine ourselves in some horrible situation but not another one? Don't agree, but unlike others, I respect opinions. I'd say though, it's pretty bad comparison putting yourself in a position of a bereaved parent than imagining to recieve vile kiddy pics. As for your example of the Olsen twins, it wouldn't happen and even if it did, you'd have to chatting to some real sicko to recieve kiddy pics because of it, so you'd be guilty before you recieved the pics. I guess all I'm saying is there's no defence. You don't recieve those kind of pictures by accident. Edited August 4 by foreveryoung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 (edited) 17 hours ago, Mark Albrighton said: It’s not a conversation to have about Edwards. It wasn’t being discussed directly about Edwards. It was a discussion about a hypothetical scenario whereby an unsuspecting individual has received an illegal image without wanting or expecting it. That was what was being discussed. Not a defence of Hew Edwards. It is not difficult to comprehend. You might think it’s far fetched, but I can imagine a situation where some laddish banter along the lines of “Hey I ****ed the Olsen twins before they were famous!” (or whatever, “when’s there grass on the pitch, let’s play”) type shite leads to someone thinking that that individual making the crass joke is sufficiently lacking a moral compass in that regard, and hey, maybe they’d also be interested in this photo collection... As I say, you might think it’s far fetched, but equally, way more far fetched things have happened. And as for “why would someone want to imagine themselves in that situation”, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen posters on here being asked to put themselves in the position of the recently bereaved parents in Southport…why would one want to do that? So, we’re being asked to imagine ourselves in some horrible situation but not another one? Well being in the same situation as the Southport parents is not the same imo. That's a random scenario that could happen to anyone. Receiving sexual images off children is something that's instigated from a conversation, so yeah, I can't imagine being in a conversation that leads to me being given vile images of children. Edited August 5 by sheepyvillian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 2 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: ugh, it's pretty bad comparison putting yourself in a position of a bereaved parent than imagining to recieve vile kiddy pics Absolutely!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 4 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4 34 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: Hopefully you wouldn't be speaking to peados and in a situation where someone would think you'd appreciate some vile kiddy pics. It's not a conversation to have. Edwards recieved them, because he was in that circle. Who the **** knows who a Peodo is. I could have met someone through work and got a bit of banter going then suddenly this arrives. In fact I've had EXACTLY that with other stuff I find distasteful. I've had a guy I barely know a little send me photos of dead bodies and another send me a load of right wing racist content. I neither encouraged or gave any kind of indication this might be anything I'm remotely interested in. They just arrived. Does that make me a racist and into necrophilia? It's not remotely beyond the bounds that someone might send you shit you don't want. PLUS in many cases it might be innocent by both parties. Who's to know that girl in those pictures was only 15,she certainly didn't look it till the police have identified her (for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 4 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4 7 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: You don't recieve those kind of pictures by accident. If you've spent any kind of time looking at Internet porn, I can almost guarantee you've opened and seen pictures of girls too young. They're not labeled with the models date of birth or headed "for paedos only" you know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 A thread in which the idea of considering yourself in a hypothetical scenario or a position you're unlikely to personally experience is treated like some baffling 4D philosophical exercise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 (edited) Maybe that's what we'll turn it into, "The Hypothetical Thread". Edited August 4 by sheepyvillian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 5 minutes ago, sidcow said: Who the **** knows who a Peodo is. I could have met someone through work and got a bit of banter going then suddenly this arrives. In fact I've had EXACTLY that with other stuff I find distasteful. I've had a guy I barely know a little send me photos of dead bodies and another send me a load of right wing racist content. I neither encouraged or gave any kind of indication this might be anything I'm remotely interested in. They just arrived. Does that make me a racist and into necrophilia? It's not remotely beyond the bounds that someone might send you shit you don't want. PLUS in many cases it might be innocent by both parties. Who's to know that girl in those pictures was only 15,she certainly didn't look it till the police have identified her (for example). I really don't think vile kiddy pics are along the same lines as the pictures you were sent. They are distasteful, agreed, but that's about it. I doubt even you would even get your collars felt for the pics you mentioned. Your in the deepest poo poo if received the pictures were talking about. You do know the type of pictures we're talking about dont you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted August 4 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4 7 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: Don't agree, but unlike others, I respect opinions. I'd say though, it's pretty bad comparison putting yourself in a position of a bereaved parent than imagining to recieve vile kiddy pics. As for your example of the Olsen twins, it wouldn't happen and even if it did, you'd have to chatting to some real sicko to recieve kiddy pics because of it, so you'd be guilty before you recieved the pics. I guess all I'm saying is there's no defence. You don't recieve those kind of pictures by accident. 5 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: Well being in the same situation as the Southport parents is not the same imo. That's a random scenario that could happen to anyone. Receiving sexual images of children is something that's instigated from a conversation, so yeah, I can't imagine being in a conversation that leads to me being given vile images of children. People have been saying “put yourself in X’s position” for a few things now. Whether that’s the unpleasant situation of being a policeman who was assaulted and then kicked the head of the person who did the attack while they were lying on the floor having been tasered. We’ve been asked to put ourselves in the position of what we would want to happen to the person who killed a child if that was our child. I don’t see the difference in putting forward a hypothetical scenario for the purpose of discussing what would an individual do if they have unwittingly received an illegal image. As for the bold…you’re saying if I had made a crass joke about the Olsen twins in the presence of a real sicko (let’s just say paedophile), but I DIDN’T know he was a paedophile, I would be guilty? Guilty of what exactly? Making a crass joke about paedophilla is not the same as being a paedophile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 1 minute ago, Mark Albrighton said: People have been saying “put yourself in X’s position” for a few things now. Whether that’s the unpleasant situation of being a policeman who was assaulted and then kicked the head of the person who did the attack while they were lying on the floor having been tasered. We’ve been asked to put ourselves in the position of what we would want to happen to the person who killed a child if that was our child. I don’t see the difference in putting forward a hypothetical scenario for the purpose of discussing what would an individual do if they have unwittingly received an illegal image. As for the bold…you’re saying if I had made a crass joke about the Olsen twins in the presence of a real sicko (let’s just say paedophile), but I DIDN’T know he was a paedophile, I would be guilty? Guilty of what exactly? Making a crass joke about paedophilla is not the same as being a paedophile. If you read the bold piece. I said receiving pictures not just the 'crass joke', as you call it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 4 Moderator Share Posted August 4 43 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Yes it seems very odd that bbc is involved in a lot of these scandals. Where’s the outrage for the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 4 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4 1 minute ago, foreveryoung said: I really don't think vile kiddy pics are along the same lines as the pictures you were sent. They are distasteful, agreed, but that's about it. I doubt even you would even get your collars felt for the pics you mentioned. Your in the deepest poo poo if received the pictures were talking about. You do know the type of pictures we're talking about dont you? This conversation is pointless. You keep trying to bring it back to the same thing. I'm trying to prove that people send you stuff you don't want. That's a fact. And I could easily believe that a bad actor could deliberately send you illegal photos purely to cause you trouble. Also there are a lot of weird people about who wouldn't consider themselves paedos and will send "risqué" photos for a laugh or thinking they're clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 2 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: I really don't think vile kiddy pics are along the same lines as the pictures you were sent. They are distasteful, agreed, but that's about it. I doubt even you would even get your collars felt for the pics you mentioned. Your in the deepest poo poo if received the pictures were talking about. You do know the type of pictures we're talking about dont you? I've got my coat, you got yours? Let's get out of here, Kid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted August 4 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4 (edited) 14 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: If you read the bold piece. I said receiving pictures not just the 'crass joke', as you call it. If YOU read what you wrote… 36 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: Don't agree, but unlike others, I respect opinions. I'd say though, it's pretty bad comparison putting yourself in a position of a bereaved parent than imagining to recieve vile kiddy pics. As for your example of the Olsen twins, it wouldn't happen and even if it did, you'd have to chatting to some real sicko to recieve kiddy pics because of it, so you'd be guilty before you recieved the pics. I guess all I'm saying is there's no defence. You don't recieve those kind of pictures by accident. edit - so what would I be guilty of BEFORE I received any pictures? I made a stupid, disgusting joke unwittingly to a scumbag. So I’m guilty of….? Edited August 4 by Mark Albrighton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 Just now, sheepyvillian said: I've got my coat, you got yours? Let's get out of here, Kid. Kid, eh? Note it down chaps… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 4 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4 3 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: I've got my coat, you got yours? Let's get out of here, Kid. You might as well. If your default position is that it's absolutely impossible to receive or accidentally open an illegal photo unless you are a paedophile then yes, this is not a conversation worth pursuing. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 4 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4 6 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: I've got my coat, you got yours? Let's get out of here, Kid. Also, I strongly advise you don't browse ANY porn on the Internet. And if you have in the past you've probably already done it so may as well take your tech straight down to the police station right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 5 minutes ago, bobzy said: Kid, eh? Note it down chaps… Come on. You can do better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 2 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: Come on. You can do better than that. Oh come on, you drop it in this thread?! It’s teed up! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 1 minute ago, bobzy said: Oh come on, you drop it in this thread?! It’s teed up! I'll give you that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts