Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In this example a judge spares a young rapist Jail because he had been corrupted by internet porn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9372051/Teen-rapist-spared-jail-after-judge-rules-he-was-corrupted-by-internet-porn-world-and-society.html

Here a newspaper claims internet porn is a poison seeping through society.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2055473/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Internet-porn-poison-seeping-society.html

But another side exists, women on dating sites being threatened with rape, is that because of how the internet makes men see women as objects, or example of how people would behave with anonymity in the real world.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/28/how-to-tackle-online-rape-threats

Did the Internet corrupt peoples minds or did peoples minds corrupt the internet?

I think it's more circular than that. The internet was created with good intent. The use of the internet gave people a public forum to push the envelope (racism/bigotry/porn/etc), then those people in turn further corrupted the internet and the circle just continued.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I think it's more circular than that. The internet was created with good intent. The use of the internet gave people a public forum to push the envelope (racism/bigotry/porn/etc), then those people in turn further corrupted the internet and the circle just continued.

Do you consider yourself corrupted by the internet and if you do, at what age do you think it happened?

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Do you consider yourself corrupted by the internet and if you do, at what age do you think it happened?

The minute I got addicted to it, got addicted to aol, became antisocial, and started hacking and ddosing websites. So probably 2 months after my 14th birthday when I first got the internet? That was like 97 or so.

Now I make a living off the internet but there's no doubt the internet corrupted me.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The minute I got addicted to it, got addicted to aol, became antisocial, and started hacking and ddosing websites. So probably 2 months after my 14th birthday when I first got the internet? That was like 97 or so.

Now I make a living off the internet but there's no doubt the internet corrupted me.

Intersting LOiC?

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Intersting LOiC? Yup, engaged all that in the 90s. I was eventually arrested by the SS in 2004 but they let me off easy. That was the end of my internet criminal career. Perhaps that's why i love this new Mr. Robot show so much.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yup, engaged all that in the 90s. I was eventually arrested by the SS in 2004 but they let me off easy. That was the end of my internet criminal career. Perhaps that's why i love this new Mr. Robot show so much.

Off topic - but I agree it's excellent only one episode though I've seen.

Back to topic, I also think the cultural corruption from the internet is vast as well as the moral.

The Internet corrupted people minds cause they are easy to corrupt.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The Internet corrupted people minds cause they are easy to corrupt.

So as a construct of the mind the internet was filled with the minds corruption and therefore corrupted minds, is that your preposition and postulation?

It's =

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It's =

What?

The internet has just given people a mostly anonymous valve to be their unfiltered selves, which often means shedding social mores and niceties which comes out to people behaving like selfish, piggish, craven monsters.

I personally try to be a well-adjusted human on the internet (except for on KMC, sometimes) which is why for instance I rarely ever comment on Youtube videos because Youtube is the nexus of idiotic opinions.

Blaming rapes on porn is such a crock of shit. Similar to how people blaming the Confederate flag for racist evil acts is. Or blaming guns for people who shoot other people instead of putting the blame where it solely belongs. Which is on the person who pulled the trigger.

Crime is down, at least in the US, and has been steadily declining for decades. I don't think the internet had/has any tangible affect on it.

50 years ago it was the dangers of television. Now it's the internet, or phones, or...people just want a scapegoat. Bad things happen, usually because the people are bad, not because of a vague, sweeping change in society.

The internet also facilitates education and connection. So to try to pigeonhole something that is so vast, and so ubiquitous in the modern world, as having only one type of influence, is laughable.

Whilst I agree that blaming rapes on porn is a dead end, none of those situations is equivalent.

The idea is not that the Confederate flag causes racism, but that it symbolises racism and should be opposed as a statement of rejection of those values- I know you don't agree, but I am pointing out how that's not the same as 'x causes y', which is the porn/rape accusation.

Likewise, porn is not accused of making people more capable of rape, merely of adjusting a mindset (nonsense though that is). Hence it is not comparable with guns which are actually a tool that can make murder easier.

Though in the US gun violence is an innate cultural issue also.

Never said they were "equivalent". I said "similar". Those are not synonyms, you know. And yes, they are very similar.

Double post

Originally posted by Star428
Never said they were "equivalent". I said "similar". Those are not synonyms, you know. And yes, they are very similar.

This is simple messing around with words to empty effect. Me saying 'not equivalent' was, pretty obviously, me saying they could not be validly compared.

Hence no, they are not similar in any meaningful sense as related to your argument.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is simple messing around with words to empty effect. Me saying 'not equivalent' was, pretty obviously, me saying they could not be validly compared.

Hence no, they are not similar in any meaningful sense as related to your argument.

Do you think the internet can provide a place where due to relative anonymity it is easy for people to commit crimes like rape and death threats on a massive scale. The foulness to women on the internet disgusts me.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Undoubtedly you are correct, traditional crime is indeed going down, however, virtual crime is going up and laws simply have not been able to keep pace.

Wait, you have to admit that's a pretty questionable part of your argument. If you are claiming that the internet has caused virtual crime to go up, I doubt you'll get much argument but of course that's a pretty useless position.

The natural element of humanity that is given to crime is naturally going to be present on the net as well, and will continue to grow in proportion to the size of, access to and understanding of the net.

I think your cry for specialised legislation is also a bit of a non-impact statement too, because a. pretty much everyone would agree and b., it's already being done.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Do you think the internet can provide a place where due to relative anonymity it is easy for people to commit crimes like rape and death threats on a massive scale. The foulness to women on the internet disgusts me.

Yes I do, but I don't think it is making humanity more criminal because I believe criminality is about intent, not means. As in, I think such people would always have been like this- the net is simply making them heard.

Is it making the world more socially dangerous because the net is allowing the mass infliction of misogyny etc then yes, I agree, and it is a struggle for our time. That said, it has exposed something that was there anyway, so this is a struggle that needed to be done sooner or later anyway. So I can't blame the net for humans being crap.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes I do, but I don't think it is making humanity more criminal because I believe criminality is about intent, not means. As in, I think such people would always have been like this- the net is simply making them heard.

Is it making the world more socially dangerous because the net is allowing the mass infliction of misogyny etc then yes, I agree, and it is a struggle for our time. That said, it has exposed something that was there anyway, so this is a struggle that needed to be done sooner or later anyway. So I can't blame the net for humans being crap.

I don't disagree with much of that as corruption in all its forms is my question. I would though question criminality being about intent exclusively and not means, I think by providing the means you encourage those who might otherwise not have had a method for crime and therefore would have taken a step back. For instance revenge sites. Posting pictures/videos of ex gfs/bfs. Hate campaigns etc. I think by providing an opportunity, it increases the chances of people making bad choices.

This is not to say all revenge choices on the internet are mad or bad as some like against Scientology etc. May not be.

Originally posted by Ushgarak


I think your cry for specialised legislation is also a bit of a non-impact statement too, because a. pretty much everyone would agree and b., it's already being done.

I would argue the legislation is aimed at the wrong people and being carried out in the wrong way, but that is way off topic.

I don;t call a thing corruption when the lack of it does not remove someone's desire to do it, only their ability.

For me, corruption is something that makes someone want to do something bad, not capable. As these people would have wanted to do the likes of revenge porn anyway, then it's not the internet that corrupted them.

The internet has given their corruption actual real world effect, though, which is an issue- but the solution is to remove the corruption at source.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don;t call a thing corruption when the lack of it does not remove someone's desire to do it, only their ability.

Rather than going in circles on that lets agree to disagree, I think for many people opportunity breeds desire. However our disagreement on this is somewhat like the premise of the thread anyway and to be expected.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

For me, corruption is something that makes someone want to do something bad, not capable. As these people would have wanted to do the likes of revenge porn anyway, then it's not the internet that corrupted them.


Again we disagree to a point as I think opportunity can alter someone's moral compass leading to making someone morally depraved

Originally posted by Ushgarak The internet has given their corruption actual real world effect, though, which is an issue- but the solution is to remove the corruption at source.

Here I do agree, however the resources and technology for this are simply not available and to be honest, I'm not sure I want my freedoms violated further.

Anyone who puts porn in the same bracket as racism or general bigotry worries me, tbh.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Anyone who puts porn in the same bracket as racism or general bigotry worries me, tbh. Depends on the kind of porn, paedo porn for instance might be considered much worse. S and M paedo porn, more so still.

Child porn is completely different, tbh.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Anyone who puts porn in the same bracket as racism or general bigotry worries me, tbh.




It's a good thing no one said they were in the "same category" then.

Originally posted by Star428
It's a good thing no one said they were in the "same category" then.

:

Originally posted by psmith81992
I think it's more circular than that. The internet was created with good intent. The use of the internet gave people a public forum to push the envelope (racism/bigotry/porn/etc), then those people in turn further corrupted the internet and the circle just continued.

shrug

If that wasn't the intention, fair enough. The post is still there, though.

Anyone who comes to the conclusion after reading my post that I was putting pornography in same category as rape has a serious reading comprehension problem. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.

I wasn't accusing you of anything, though. You responded to me.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is simple messing around with words to empty effect. Me saying 'not equivalent' was, pretty obviously, me saying they could not be validly compared.

Hence no, they are not similar in any meaningful sense as related to your argument.
Should call him Chrushgarak the way this dude be crushing debates.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Should call him Chrushgarak the way this dude be crushing debates.

Way to make his name even manly (and METAL). haermm *claps for Omega*

Originally posted by -Pr-
Child porn is completely different, tbh. To a point, however it is still there to fulfill sexual gratification in an audience.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
To a point, however it is still there to fulfill sexual gratification in an audience.

Yeah, in the same way that an armed robbery and going to work at your job are there to fulfil monetary gratification...

Originally posted by Star428
Anyone who comes to the conclusion after reading my post that I was putting pornography in same category as racism has a serious reading comprehension problem. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.



Fixed.


When I typed the original post in question it was late last night. I was in a hurry and excited because I was on my way to celebrate the 4th. Obviously no one ever accused me of saying rape and porn were the same. It should've been clear I actually meant "racism" instead of "rape" though if you take my post before that one into account.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, in the same way that an armed robbery and going to work at your job are there to fulfil monetary gratification...

Hmmmm......... I don't think many would choose the sex industry if they could earn as much in another job, bit like robbing a bank... maybe.

Porn isn't an empowering profession, generally in our culture it is demeaning to women.

Is it as demeaning to some as the confederate flag, the argument can EASILY be made that is it, that however doesn't equate to them being equally was bad. Just that they are both "devils" in their own corner.

This boggles the mind that a judge could give a kid essentially a rape pass because he was "corrupted" by internet porn. Seriously? Corrupted? What porn was this kid watching that made him want to screw a 5 yr. old?

They act like every time the kid would log online the evil internet would just automatically take him to porn sites. On top of that, what about the parents? You can set up parental controls to prevent kids from accessing certain websites, so why not hold them culpable for allowing the "corruption" to happen?

It is no wonder people can't take our justice system seriously. Just reading some of the statements of that article "oh he will be labeled a sexual deviant forever!". Well yes because he raped a 5 yr. old. He was 14 years old not 14 months old, he was old enough to know better.

I know kids can do stupid things and thus we don't always penalize them as harshly as adults..but there just has to be a limit, there has to be a line where you say "even though he is a young teen..he still should of known better". If an adult would of gotten several years in prison..toss the kid into juvy for the same amount. I wasn't anywhere near being "wise" when I was 14, and yet I still knew rape was wrong. They are also saying "this will follow him around forever". Well yeah, when you rape a child..that should follow you around forever.

They say they couldn't release the kids name due to legal reasons. If I was the girls father I would just release his name myself to the world. I don't think it'd be illegal to name the person who raped your child, even if the police specifically can't.

Porn can't be demeaning to women in my opinion, considering statistics show the majority of women in the porn industry are happy with their career choice.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Porn can't be demeaning to women in my opinion, considering statistics show the majority of women in the porn industry are happy with their career choice.

Yep, and plus even if they aren't super happy..nobody is ever forced into doing porn. Or at least 99% of the time they aren't forced.

As far as that judge goes, he's as dumb as the Texas judge who have a teen a pass for manslaughter via dui because his parents never taught him right from wrong.

I'm leaning more on the latter. It's the people who corrupt the internet, NOT the other way around. The internet was made with good intentions. Unfortunately, there is more bad than good in this world. So all these sites based on vices and crime eventually took over the internet. It was inevitable.

Originally posted by psmith81992
As far as that judge goes, he's as dumb as the Texas judge who have a teen a pass for manslaughter via dui because his parents never taught him right from wrong.

Yeah that case was even worse because it made even less sense then this. The only way you could claim he isn't at fault because the parents never taught him right from wrong would be if the only people he was ever exposed to in his entire life were his parents. If he was exposed to other people, hell if he attended school..he'd have some concept or what is right and what is wrong.

Hell, he'd not only need to of never been in contact with anyone but his parents, but he'd also of needed to of never watched any tv or movies or read any books.

Though then if they want to say the parents didn't teach him right from wrong then the parents should of lost custody forever. Something tells me they didn't.