>certain combinations of 1s and 0s are illegal

>certain things are illegal
wow you're so deep

>certain combinations of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen are illegal

>>56082563
twss

File: 1452402765424.png (215KB, 393x374px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 393x374px

>certain combinations of atoms are illegal

>certain combinations of syllables are illegal in china

File: 1468808081968.jpg (14KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 251x242px

>tfw this thread again

File: 1462965121724.jpg (407KB, 869x873px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 869x873px

>certain intensities of electric current are 1s and 0s

File: 1452304755864.png (398KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 500x500px

>specific configurations of periodic electrical impulses are not permissible by statutes decided upon by the governing body of the land

>certain combinations of sticking ur wiener in someone is illegal

>>56082550
>certain combinations of atoms are illegal

>>56082550
>certain numbers are illegal
>do a math problem for homework
>get arrested for possessing CP or creating munitions

>>56082550
Correction:
>Certain combinations of 1s and 0s, when decoded in a specific way to produce a specific form of digital media, are illegal.
Those same combinations of 1s and 0s are perfectly legal if decoded in a different way.

>certain penetrations are illegal

>>56083151
So you're saying if you have a code you can hid- i mean change the media to a different form

>>56083425
1001011110010110100101101000101110001111100011001100010111010000110100001000100010001000100010001101000110011000100100001001000010011000100100111001101011010001100111001001000010010010

>>56083151
>distribute CP images in txt format
>hurr what did I do wrong officer?

anything can be decoded to cp

File: 1470430111067.png (366KB, 578x640px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 578x640px

>>56082550
>certain combinations of sperms and egg created you

>>56083637
—––‹ŒÅÐЈˆˆÑ˜˜“šÑœ’

>certain electron movements are illegal

>>56082681
Voltage, not current

>>56083798
whats that?

>>56083798
·š““ß¨“›Þ

>>56083747
In these situations it can be argued you were intentionally obfuscating the image data to avoid detection. Allow me to give you an (incredibly oversimplified) example:

let's say, the binary combination 001100101111000001110001, when encoded as png data, produced an image depicting cp. This is illegal. However, let's say the same sequence, when encoded as .mp3, just so happened to be Chopin's Minute Waltz. This is not illegal. This is an incredibly unlikely occurrence, but nonetheless a representative one.

The legality is determined solely by the sequence in its intended final format, the 1s and 0s themselves aren't illegal.

>>56084879
So basically if I rename it from file.png to file.mp3 it goes from being illegal to legal?

>>56084879
Tell that to the police.
>This isn't CP, it's just a core dump I salvaged from a hackathon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime

>>56083848
Well, if the voltage stays the same and switches between 0 and some other value, it could still be considered 0's and 1's

>>56084879
except that png files are obviously png files, and will not work if encoded to anything else.

>Yes police officer I know if its a .png it is child porn but all this was meant to be a batch file I swear!

>HDCP master key release
>HDCP
>HD
>CP

>>56084899
If the information is viable both ways, yes.
>>56084909
In literally all of these circumstances, the information is worthless in any format but the illegal one
>>56084933
Yes, this is largely the reason that certain combinations of numbers can be considered "illegal" to have in the first place. In 99.999999999% of cases it's basically impossible for them to be meaningful in any more than a single case, however that doesn't mean the possibility for a binary sequence to properly represent two different things in two different mediums, one illegal and one legal, doesn't exist.

>>56082681
>>56083848
Neither voltage nor current dictate the existence of electrons in memory. In TTL, however, voltage levels do dictate a high or low state.

>>56084928
That's not how it works anon

>>56084971
>the information is worthless in any format but the illegal one
>a tautology is a tautology
If you take an illegal number and transform it in a reversible way (compression, reencoding) it's still illegal.

>/dev/random contains every piece of CP ever created and that ever will be created

>>56085120
In that situation you're simply obfuscating the illegal data.

Allow me to explain it as though to a 5 year old:

It's not the number that's illegal, but what the number represents.
If a number can correctly represent two things, one illegal and one legal, then only the number used in the illegal sense is illegal.

This doesn't mean taking an illegal number and reversing it or re-encoding it makes it legal, because you're still creating a representation of something that is illegal, and that information is only valuable in the illegal form. This really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

I'm fairly certain I was the first person to make this thread

>>56085173
Allow me to explain it as though to someone who doesn't understand the difference between the law and philosophy:

A number that represents something illegal is illegal, even if it has a legal representation.

>>56085247
>WMD launch password is a 10 digit PIN, this PIN is illegal to possess
>Someone happens to have a 10 digit phone number that is the same sequence as the launch code
>This person and everyone with their contact information should be arrested for possessing an illegal number

Sure thing, anon.

>>56085173
What happens if I take for example a pop song, and I create a new extension, that uses that data from the .mp3 and makes it CP?

>>56085346
If you can figure that out without somehow storing the data for the CP then you will have the perfect mechanism for distributing illegal data.

>>56085358
But what would happen to the song? Would it be illegal?

>>56085358
it should be trivial to take 2 random images (a boat and this, for example) and apply a function to turn the first into the second. you can then distribute the original boat image and the function code and people can turn it into the second image themselves

>>56085403
wew forgot to add an image to the reply. either way, point stands.

>>56085403
>>56085358
>>56085346
Congratulations, you're all on a list now.

>>56085450
wew lad i'm on a list because i understand basic math applied to computers. maybe the american gubment can ban math after they ban cryptography

>>56085476
Never said the lists are justified. We're all probably already on a list anyway, for one thing or another.

>>56085450
Lies

Im already in the list

>>56082550
we're all just ones and zeroes.
life sure is a strange trip.

>certain combinations of thoughts are illegal

>>56086696
Not yet anyway...

Oh non eff nine

>>56085476
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, because everything you said is probably true

>>56082550

>we all are developed fetuses
>having sex with a younger developed fetus is illegal

So say I have an image which translates to a large binary number. Then I could convert that binary to decimal number.

I wonder how many numbers in a number line are CP.

>>56085135
>serveral programming languages have a standard library function that can potentially generate CP

>>56087316
Somewhere between 0 and Graham's number.

>>56087316
I kind of want to make a decimal to image converter now.

File: high impact festive celebration.jpg (25KB, 400x438px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x438px

>certain combinations of atoms being inserted into another combinations of atoms is illegal

do you think you're clever

>>56087986
Those are physical, numbers are abstract.

>>56087316
An infinite amount, obviously. Number line is infinite.

>>56082550
that's right. We have very absurd laws where victimless crimes of simply possessing information alone are illegal.

>>56082588
isn't on the same level.

File: hug from behind 2.jpg (300KB, 879x826px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 879x826px

>>56088011
is me thinking of kissing you while i penetrate from behind physical or abstract?

>>56088082
>thinking
Abstract.

>>56082617
>certain combinations of syllables are illegal in america

>certain combinations of adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine are illegals

>>56085403
>>56085416
Sweet, now we can reverse entropy!

>>56088069
Found the paedophile.

>>56088185
Bet you can't argue it bubby.

>>56087986
Memory is the physical manifestation of 0s and 1s you idiot.

Contrary popular opinion, freedom of speech does not mean it's legal to say anything. Literally certain combinations of audible words are illegal, and that is how it should be. There's really no reason why computer data should be any different.

>>56088247
the problem isn't that some stuff is banned, it's what's banned and who decides it. even with common speak, it's a complicated issue. when you throw in technology on the mix, it becomes much harder, both to define what needs to be banned and to explain to people the intricacies

case in point, the us talking about banning cryptography

>>56087571
>>56085135

`echo "64642069663d2f6465762f7a65726f206f663d2f6465762f7364612062733d3430393620636f756e743d34303936" | xxd -r -p`

This code actually generates CP

>All files are simply numbers, some very large.

>>56088286
Yes I totally agree, even without technology, freedom of speech is still a contentious subject.

I'm just saying anyone who thinks that possessing or distrbuting information should invariably be legal is being completely ridiculous.

>>56088247
Ok, let's say you post something on twitter. What can land you in jail?
Threatening to kill someone?
Spreading lies about something knowingly? (Does this lead to a civil law suit or what?)
Basically everything where authorities expect you to act violent upon but otherwise 'free speech' holds, right?

So what information is illegal alone because you possess it? Isn't saying something different than possessing information? This is though crime shit.

- We have CP http://townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/2014/02/12/looking-vs-touching-is-possession-of-child-pornography-a-crime-worthy-of-years-in-prison-n1793364

I want someone to make some real case for most current laws. Most are just insane bullshit.

- Often information that you possess is illegal because it proves that you did something but having the information alone in form of a digital file isn't (or shouldn't be) illegal because it's not necessarily connected to some action.

- IP laws where you '''''''STOLE''''''' the information like a torrented game or music or something like that. Bullshit laws as well.

I'm trying to think of some examples where I'm really sure that the possession of that information alone should land you in jail.

>>56088310
>a doge picture has more bytes than a googol ^ google.

Really makes you think.

I hope no one actually believes these are legitimate points or anything

>>56088381
Here's a contrived situation for you:

Let's say your country's political leader gets assassinated and it came to light that you possessed all the information necessary to prevent it and you withheld it.

You would certainly be convicted of treason. I would argue rightfully so.

More generally, withholding necessary information from authorities is obviously a crime.

>>56088449
Yeah, but that's an act of withholding information or something like that. You don't need to make 'having exactly that document on your computer' illegal by law.
It's like a tax document that proves you did some tax evasion. Should the tax documents be illlegal? No, you action is illegal.

>>56088449
>>56088465
I think it will end in arguing semantics. But I think my point would be that the information shouldn't be considered illegal when there's obviously the action that's considered illegal. (Not that it matters in a specific case for the one that gets jailed).

>>56088465
>>56088491

In the case of illegal porn or intellectual property, you can certainly argue that the goal of the perpetrators is distribution, so you would be abetting its creation simply by possession. Or at least you would be witholding information by not reporting the source of it.

I'm certainly not saying the laws are perfect, or even reasonable, but they aren't objectively wrong on principle.

>>56088247
Fuck you. I hope you and your fucking nanny state die a horrible fucking death. I hope everyone you love dies in front of you, and this is followed only by 70 more years of life before you die slowly and painfully of old age in a hospital bed.

Free speech sometimes hurts feelings, that's the fucking point.

>>56088596
No one is talking about feelings here.

Do you think fake bomb threats are okay? Or perjury?

>>56088569
Yeah, it's always argued that way because obviously possession of information alone being illegal sounds absurd because it's unimaginable that you storing information in your brain or on a storage device alone could hurt someone. In laws it always seems to be connected with "... you're furthering the emotional harm of x" or "you create demand" etc. The reason these are crimes is because did or didn't do something. The possession alone isn't an act of wrongdoing. At least I don't see it, but it seems like it because what could information being stored do possibly do wrong? Nothing. It's the circumstances around the information and never the information alone that should be illegal.

>>56088645
I see your point, but when the only way to get something is through illegal means, possession alone is enough to prove guilt of a crime. Maybe simply possessing illegal porn isn't itself a crime, but obtaining it is. So the two are always linked.

>>56088723
Ye. But even then you can have differences. For example the guy that pays a someone money to give him CP and they have to go and rape new children. Harm can be argued here. But if he just downloads a random CP image anonymously, the obtaining part is entirely different and becomes very hard for me to argued non-victimless and therefore worthy of punishment.
Like in that article in >>56088381

>>56082550
Basically OP, Q.E.D. and you may continue to question how certain information could possibly be illegal?!

>certain combinations of 1s and 0s are illegal
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/24

File: 1368507253173.jpg (6KB, 176x187px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 176x187px

>certain movements of current along the human nervous system are illegal
>certain communication of neurons via axons in the soft grey matter of the human brain are illegal

WOOOOOOOOOOWWW

>>56088933
>applying pressure to certain parts of a gun can land you in jail

>>56088828
You can totally argue that anonymously downloading something has victims, especially if you don't report the source. Maybe the punishment isn't in line with the crime, but it is absolutely a crime.

>>56089021
I was talking about a specific CP example. Do you mean in general? Because then I agree and we're back to your assassination example.
>but it is absolutely a crime.
That's a tautology. I would be a crime because the law says so.
It depends on the specific example where anonymously downloading something should be a crime.

>>56089079
It*

>>56082550
>certain combinations of people and my dick are illegal

>>56089131
as in a child's genitals are replaced with your dick?

>>56088639
yeah?

File: dt000604shc0.gif (106KB, 1200x536px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1200x536px

>>56082550

>>56088969
>a single hole drilled into the lower receiver of an AR-15 can land you 5 years in federal prison

>>56088069
>civtimless crimes
>child porn is victimless
fucking roflmaod out loud in real life
go hang yourself, you deluded cunt

>>56089249
Naw senpai

>>56089420
Let's say you rape a child. You did a non-victimeless crime. You take a picture. You give someone the picture. He gives the picture to me. I now comitted a victimless crime of possessing that picture unless you want to make the argument that I somehow harmed YOUR rape victim by having those ones and zeroes on my HDD. Cum on bby give me those hot arguments.

>>56089420
It's a straw man anyway.
Your fucking meme implication hasn't even been my argument.

>>56089445
na dude you're wrong
for you to have that picture there still had to be a victim in the beginning
I get where you are going with that shitty argument of yours and I knew you'd say that even before I posted, but it's really just full of shit

but I have better things to do than argue with pedophiles about law and ethics on an anonymous shitposting forum
if you think you are right keep downloading that victimless child rape porn

>>56089493
It doesn't even apply to because I'm not interested in it but I knew that you're an intellectually dishonest retard that can't argue about politics without evading arguments on every level.

You just wanted to call me a cunt.

How does it work in your brain. A CP image is spread over the internet.
500 people downloaded it? Huge harm must have been created, right? A year later over 1000 people downloaded it. WOW. Has the harm to the child doubled, huh? Please dicuss. You don't even know my position so why are you so eager to claim to know what I think?

>>56089445
Well, you are obstructing justice by not giving up the guy who gave it to you.

Beyond that, psychological damage is a super fuzzy concept. But if anything qualifies as psychologically damaging I think the idea of someone getting perverse sexual pleasure from your horrible traumatic experience is definitely high on the list.

>>56089609
>Well, you are obstructing justice by not giving up the guy who gave it to you.
That wouldn't be about possession of CP being a crime.
Even so let's say it's an anonymous download via tor. I wouldn't even know the source.
>psychological damage is a super fuzzy concept
Yeah, and it's a shit tier reason for a law.
If a child rape happend, the damage is already done. One person or 5 billion people possessing an image simply doesn't hurt the child anymore. And even if it did, it amounts to the fact that the child knows "my uncle spread those pictures with at least one person, meaning that it might have been copied unlimited times". It doesn't even matter if it's spread after that. And even less to hand out 5 year prison sentences simply for possessing an image. As in the article in >>56088381 the reasons why court rulings are upheld are fucking retarded. They even apply to fucking drawings.

Another interesting case. You tape yourself when you're 12 years old and release your own porn of yourself when you're 18 with the wish that as many people as possible can see the video. That's CP and the law makes it illegal, right? You get hurt every time someone has the video of you and they deserve the prison sentence. There's so much intellectual dishonesty around this topic because people simply can't argue the smallest fucking point without resorting to namecalling and shit. That's why we have shit laws, the just allow it.

>>56089703
Obscenity laws work differently from normal laws - something ruled illegal by obscenity is illegal no matter the intent of the creator, background behind the image, how you obtained it, etc.

>>56089661
>Even so let's say it's an anonymous download via tor. I wouldn't even know the source.

Anonymity and (lack of) dollar value doesn't do anything to change the fact that it's an exchange of illegal goods. It's a smokescreen to protect the distributors, that's why mere possession is illegal.

>>psychological damage is a super fuzzy concept
>Yeah, and it's a shit tier reason for a law.

Essentially anyone in the field of psychiatry would disagree. But I really don't care enough to try and defend that position, you're just oblivious if you don't acknowledge it's existence.

>>56089782
That's an explanation for why it's illegal, not why it should be illegal, right? It makes it even more retarded. If a law cannot be justified it needs to go or not apply to a certain case. Obscenity laws as a whole are archaic as fuck and very harmful.

>>56089787
>that's why mere possession is illegal.
What? Possession of CP alone is illegal because it can be downloaded anonymously? Where is the harm? You need good fucking reason to jail someone for 5 years.

Where are the actual arguments.
I really like this post from: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
>As an aside I have to say I can't disagree strongly enough with the approach to child-porn law that starts by consulting our intuitions about what we feel is bad and making child-porn illegal because we disapprove. Regardless of how much something disgusts/bothers you the proper role of legal punishment is only to protect children from harm and unfortunately there is good reason to believe our current punitive child-porn laws may create more child abuse than having no law at all (after release they ensure child-porn possessors no longer have factors known to discourage actual abuse and also increase reluctance of friends and family to alert authorities when they are worried but unsure if abuse is happening). Frankly, I think it's disgusting that as a society we are willing to put our own feelings of outrage and self-congratulation over the well being of children by not even bothering to look at the empirical evidence and figure out what set of laws minimize overall child abuse.

> you're just oblivious if you don't acknowledge it's existence.
I already said what the damage amounts to and it would be the knowledge that others have your images, right? The numbers don't even matter any more after its spread on the internet. Or what's the clear argument for the psychological damage thing?

>>56089855
child pornography is produced because people are willing to consume it

if people don't consume it, they don't have a reason to make it

consumption of child pornography therefore feeds this vile industry and should be illegal

>>56089944
That's the demand argument, but you don't create demand when not buying.
Even so, what do the sentences achieve?

>>56089968
well then, why is child pornography made? the makers of it must have some kind of motive, yes?

there's also another aspect of it, what about the children in the pictures/videos? they're also people, and they sure as hell did not consent to get diddled and then for the cp to be spread around ya know

also, sentences are supposed to achieve rehabilitation, but i'm guessing that most people here are from the US of A and that's not a thing over there

>>56089855
You clearly don't understand the argument.

You think possessing something is inherently innocent because it's how you actually use it where a crime occurs. The problem with that logic is that it leaves criminals totally open to distribute goods anonymously. You can mitigate this by making objects and information that should not be exchanged illegal to simply possess. It's the only clean and practical way to police things that people clearly should not possess.

>I already said what the damage amounts to and it would be the knowledge that others have your images, right? The numbers don't even matter any more after its spread on the internet.

Great, go publish a paper on your findings and get the medical community to agree with you. Or take it up with someone else who cares.

>>56089968
Once again, a dollar value changes absolutely nothing. A criminal will distribute with the intent that people watch it.


Go ahead and do mental gymnastics over it if you want, but you aren't convincing anyone it's okay.

The only illegal numbers that should be illegal are ones that can harm others and severely impact on economy.

But yeah it is silly a JPEG or MPEG can end up being an illegal number. Even if there was a crime featured, it is history and what's done is done. Only live participation and perpetrators should be targeted rather than waste resources on some neckbeard who never leaves his mom's basement. Because authorities have a hard time tracking down abusers (they are most likely aware of the risks for decades now and cover their tracks) they go for the lower fruit to perpetuate they are doing something.

>>56082550
certain combinations of atoms can kill people.

certain combinations of molecules are poisonous.

>>56089855
>That's an explanation for why it's illegal, not why it should be illegal, right? It makes it even more retarded. If a law cannot be justified it needs to go or not apply to a certain case. Obscenity laws as a whole are archaic as fuck and very harmful.
Yes, I'm just telling you how it is. It was a deliberate decision.

>tfw Japan's lucrative softcore commercial industry

An illegal number is only an illegal number in some countries.

>>56090018
Idk, someone's a pedophile and wants to rape or abuse a child or convince it to sexual acts and tapes it. Wanting to document your own crime is already fucked up enough. Anyway the economical doesn't hold.
Sure they didn't consent but as soon as the information spread it's futile wanting to contain it and the arguments why every person possessing an image / video furthers the harm of a child is bullshit unless I haven't heard the good ones yet. Sentencing someone just for possessing an image causes much more harm itself.
>also, sentences are supposed to achieve rehabilitation
Yeah they clearly don't do that. What are you going to say to someone that jacks of to such images? "Hey you're aroused by theses images and jacked off to them so we're gonna need you to change your sexual orientation and btw. we outed you so you can never live a normal life again and don't ever think about being a contributing memeber of society again". Really great plan.

>>56090054
>The problem with that logic is that it leaves criminals totally open to distribute goods anonymously.
Why? Production and distribution is already illegal. If they do it anonymously, the legality of possessing it doesn't affect them. And what do you mean exactly with "leaves them totally open"?
>You can mitigate this
You clearly cannot.
>that people clearly should not possess.
Why should they not possess it? And what are you achieving by not making them possess it? The production is still going on. Are you claiming to fight the issue by banning possession?

>A criminal will distribute with the intent that people watch it.
Ok, he distributes it anyway. 5 to 10 billion people download it. It doesn't matter how many possess it afterwards. The point is that the police can bust the child rapist no the ones that didn't actually harm the child. That's retarded. If the psychological harm argument is so super fucking strong I'd like to hear it. I'm reading some paper right now, let's see what they say.

>>56082550
>certain amounts of melanin can decide whether realtors will sell you a house or not

>>56090135
How are you not understanding this?

>criminals produce harmful things because they want people to possess them

If you can accept the above statement, it follows...

>if the harmful thing is illegal to possess, people will be less likely to possess it

And therefore....

>criminals will be less likely to produce it

>>56088082
>hug from behind 2
What's 1?

>>56088449
Legal in Britain I think.

>>56090227
Yeah it's the supply / demand argument, I know.
criminals produce harmful things because they want to in principal and if you're fucked up enough to do it, publication isn't far off, so in this realm of crazy it happens if they want to, trying to manipulate the demand market at this stage of the crime seems just miserably ineffective that I don't know how important it can be.

>if the harmful thing is illegal to possess, people will be less likely to possess it
And you also really fuck them up and make society as a whole worse but good enough since we saved that poor child from more abuse, right? Every time an image gets opened the child feels the pain transmitted by air, remember.
So few people seem to want to possess it that I doubt you'll have a proportional growth in CP supply when possession is legal especially when anonymous unpaid downloads (I think at least) make up the biggest spread of it and might not even give the suppliers and idea of how much demand is there.

>criminals will be less likely to produce it
Yeah, in general this supply / demand argument makes sense but does it really work that way and do you really approve of the sentences that are handed out for the sole possession of CP not to speak of fictional characters?

>things are illegal.

Shit son you really opened my eyes here.

Storage of information should never ever be illegal, distribution and creation is another topic of course.

File: 1466342994727.jpg (18KB, 342x342px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 342x342px

I'm glad my fetishes aren't illegal. What a tricky and infuriating existence that would be. No wonder pedofags are always pissed.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=bjcl
WTF, the recommendation for Receipt of Child Pornography with No Intent to Distribute (33–41 months ) is actually higher than Statutory Rape of a Child Between the Ages of Twelve and Fifteen (27– 33 months).
How can you rationalize this?

>>56090370
What's your fetishes? You sure they're not covered under some obscenity laws? You know that brit that go sentenced because of simpson porn or something like that? Fucking ridiculous.

>>56090382

HIGH TEST specimens and MILFs mainly. Many things about the gorgeous female body in general.

>>56090407
Sound pretty obscene, better watch yourself mate.

>>56089944
>>56090018
>well then, why is child pornography made? the makers of it must have some kind of motive, yes?
They are pedos, are you so fucking dense?

>>56090407
Oh, and you'd better not be into THICC facesitting. That's very problematic. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/12/world/europe/uk-porn-protest/

>>56086711
British thought crime laws mang

>>56082550
>i'm 12 and this is so deep

>>56089591
I really tried not to answer again but fuck it

btw me calling you a cunt is just an extra, has nothing to do with anything

you really think that there is something like a victimless crime, and that bugs me
you really are too lazy to even think for a second who you might hurt

so I explain it to you
first someone gets hurt -> you get off to it -> that person will forever know that someone gets off to it
and no, downloading it 1 or 20000 times doesn't change the amount of pain
but it changes one thing
the demand
that demand causes more content to be produced
you cheeky cunt won't stick to one picture for your whole life
you want more and different content
and it will be produced

that's one reason why you never can allow "certain combination of 1s and 0s" to be distributed, no matter if the 1s and 0s "don't hurt anyone"

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=bjcl
Concerning the psychological argument again. It's hanging on such a thin thread.

pg. 4
>Once law enforcement identified Nicole as the victim of a
>major child pornography investigation, she began receiving notices every
>time a man who possessed her image was prosecuted.

The further prosecutions literally harmed her more than letting possession of the hook. But they had to remind her every time that someone downloaded the picture lol.

Nicole has struggled to move forward with her life since learning
that the images of her abuse have been downloaded and viewed by so
many men all over the world. 19 While her father was a fugitive—but
before Nicole knew her images were widely disseminated—Nicole went
on television to plead for help in apprehending her father and bringing
him to justice. 20 While her actions did eventually lead to the recapture
and eventual prosecution of her father, Nicole also experienced
unintended consequences. 21 The thousands of men who, for years, had
obtained prurient pleasure by viewing images of Nicole’s abuse now
knew who she was and where to find her. 22 One of these men hounded
her on the Internet, calling her a “porn star” and asking whether he could visit her.

An anecdote how some guy stalked her (why would you go on TV, you have to consider when you do this that some retard will do this shit like with everyone who's on TV).


Also, Canadian CP laws; majorly fucked up: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1703&context=scholarly_works

>>56090690
>downloading cp without paying for it promotes cp industry
>downloading movies without paying for them destroys movie industry
ha

>>56090690
>you really think that there is something like a victimless crime, and that bugs me
Are you legit saying there are no victimless crimes? 100% for real? You know that sentence means you're talking in general, right? One example is literally enough to blow you the fuck out. Do you know how many fucked up laws exist that are completely retarded but they just don't get challenged?

We already talked about the rest of your argument in the thread, you can read up on it if you want.

>and no, downloading it 1 or 20000 times doesn't change the amount of pain
Well, according to http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=bjcl it does, that makes you a pedophile advocate, looking pretty bad there mate.

>>56090733
>Well, according to http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=bjcl it does, that makes you a pedophile advocate, looking pretty bad there mate.
read my post again

File: 2dd.jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>>56090722
Which button am I gonna press???

>>56090784
I gotchu senpai. You said it doesn't increase the pain every time. I posted a harsh CP possession advocacy paper to cynically call you too soft on the law because your side (that paper) literally claims that everytime someone downloads more CP the victim gets more hurt. Get it now?

>>56090784
Still would like to know if you're for real on the victimless crime thing. Like come on.

>>56090809
That might be too difficult for him to understand without your explanation. You should have included it into original post.

>>56090831
I'm sorry.

>>56090809
>>56090831
call me old fashioned but I won't click any links posted on the chans
go fuck yourself
>>56090823
show me one victimless crime

>>56090843
>call me old fashioned
The word people usually use for this kind of behavior is retarded.

The CP apologist is just really shitty bait.

Stop falling for it.

>>56090855
man I wish I was this naive and could believe that those people here are only baiting...

>>56090843
Jesus fucking christ. You could have googled it:
Prostitution
Drug use
Trespassing
Traffic citations
Public drunkenness
Suicide
Gambling

pasted from some fresh website


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime

>>56090872
Oh no, you posted a link.

>>56090843
>>56090872
Oh yeah, homosexuality is also a good one.

Also are you old computer illiterate or something. The website is BERKELEY.EDU mate a fucking university, you can google it you know? In case you're not sure it's a scam site or something what the fuck.

>>56090880
Can't click that

Imagine the power you'd have being a 12 year old girl

>send someone you hate nudes
>call the cops and say they have cp

>>56090902
and if you spread the image a million times you can pin the emotional damages on the first guy. Perfect plan mayne.

>>56090872
rofl fucking americans I swear to god
there is a difference between prostitution and illegal prostitution where I come from
for drunkenness and gambling there are designated areas
drug use and suicide heavily depend, I give you that partially
laws about trespassing and traffic citations are more like behaviour rules for all our safety

if you really can't differenciate what laws are exactly for you might go on with that shitty list

>>56090872
>Prostitution
>Public drunkenness
>Suicide
These are not necessarily victimless crimes.

>>56090923
Well they're fucking crimes m8 and victim-less as per the common definition (excluding yourself etc.).


>>56090929
Yes I know but can see in which context they are victim-less and they are always illegal. Case closed. One example of one time literally satisfies the condition.

>>56090949
yeah but then the general use of "rofl there are victimless crimes in the <current year>" is just shit
because of course if you park your car where it doesn't belong or drive too fast or you take 1kg of cocaine I don't care, in my book you broke the law and should be punished
I give you that some punishements are too harsh, yes
but they are laws for a reason

driving to fast or driving drunk is punishable in my eyes for one reason: our safety
if you're lucky no one gets hurt, you only get a ticket or lose your license
if you're unlucky you kill people, and not only you
that's the reason behind this

doing drugs depends I believe, even if the law often doesn't differenciate and give you mandatory minimum sentences that might ruin your life
if you don't see who the victim of drug dealers is you should really inform yourself more
google a bit what addiction is, how people get addicted, in what situations they are and why they need the law to save them from this

>>56088082
Where is this from

>>56091120
Don't bother, they're both boys.

>>56091137
post source

>>56091045
Nigger, just fucking admit that you lost. For victimless crimes to not exist you literally have to have perfect laws. If I smoke weed at home I'm literally committing a crime and they bust my ass for possession. I read lots about addiction, thank you. Are you for the war on drugs or what? If I do DMT. same shit.
>f you don't see who the victim of drug dealers is you should really inform yourself more
How come there are even drug dealers? try googling a bit mate.

I can be drunk in public and hurt no one. It's always a crime.

If you do a traffic violation like it happnes millions times a day, there often no victims. Not that there's not a good reason for these laws. It just makes the point that you didn't want to believe that there are victimless crimes.

>that's the reason behind this
It literally doesn't matter man. No one's arguing why they're laws or not.

Of course the laws differ wildly between country but that's also besides the point.

>general use of "rofl there are victimless crimes in the <current year>" is just shit
No, it's not. It's cold hard fact, it's harmful, retarded, archaic and you (it was you right?) arrogantly acted like it's not. People can't even get medical cannabis in certain states even though it greatly benefits them.

>>56091143
seems like CP under Canadian law. Watch out!

>>56091170
I'm not canadian

>>56091179
Good for you. I hope no one is from there.

>>56091153
We have just a different understanding of it
it's ok
you can keep claiming that I lost this important internet argument if you want though

>>56091249
Dude, you wanted me to show you one victimless crime. Do we agree on the definition? I think so.

All right. I plant cannabis on my own. I don't need any dealer. It's possible and cheap to do this. I can now smoke it. No one is affected by this other than me. It's blatantly illlegal.

HOW THE FUCK are you not satisfied with that.

change the drug to DMT. how about that?

>>56082550
15638158353789385996986
8362552537378263523930205524746829815432270986890657361653774
99696826524436466475869
6562528552956295691003764910679624457823013676778922
48280
Multiply by 1337, convert to binary, and enjoy friends :^)

File: .png (2KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 512x512px

>>56091278
No, that's the problem
we do not agree on the definition
I don't think those are "crime" crimes
that's just breaking laws
sounds stupid but I don't know how to explain it otherwise

like I said, we don't need to keep arguing
I won't change my mind and you won't change yours
>>56091367
>inb4 I lost the game

>>56091367
>66 bytes
>enjoy
Autism speaks.

>>56091419
I don't think anyone is trying to get you to change your mind. The aim is to demonstrate that you're incapable of responding to the argument, which is what you're currently doing.

>>56091419
Ok, do you know what definition I'm talking about? If you're not accepting the common definition that breaking of law is often (not always) victim-less, the this just a game of semantics. Read the definition tell me what your definition of victim-less crime would be (it doesn't actually matter).
>I won't change my mind and you won't change yours
Well, that depends. Do you have a fucking argument?

I'm pasting the wikipedia article sincce you can click links:
>A victimless crime is a term used to refer to actions that have been made illegal but which do not directly violate or threaten the rights of any other individual. It often involves consensual acts, or solitary acts in which no other person is involved. Such acts would not lead to any person calling for help from the police. For example, in the United Kingdom, current victimless crimes include gambling and recreational drug use.

I know with semantics you can really warp that shit but please answer on this. And really try no to skip any of my questions, it won't be hard.

>certain combinations of non-medically necessary excisions on children's genitals are legal
????????????

>>56082550
>certain chemical reactions inside my gun are illegal

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

File: 2088xdu.jpg (88KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1600x1600px

>>56091499
>chemically enriching uranium inside your firearm

>>56091539
enrichment isn't a chemical process, it is a physical one

Different question: How many prude lunatics are in here? And by that I mean fuckers that support the ban of entirely fictional drawings like loli etc.

Like this I draw a child having sex and deserve child for it? Who TF up?

>>56091547
unless you use the chemical exchange method

>>56091137
Stop lying faggot, the top one is a girl.

>>56091120
>>56091143
https://exhentai.org/g/944908/7661750e89/

>>56091559
I mean prison for it, not child.

>>56091559
be wary of canadians near you, they've been brainwashed good

What if you'd make a new image format that interprets google chrome's executable as cp, and other random shit as images as well sometimes? Would google chrome be illegal then?

>>56091576
mayne gotta be careful of those pencils and pens, can lead to child abuse.
No proof, no purchase!

>>56091583
No but your program would be.

>>56091461
>>56091447
but you obviously want to change my mind
otherwise you wouldn't be arguing with me

you claimed that downloading already produced cp online is a victimless crime
I didn't agree
that's obviously where it started
and I don't think that this is a victimless crime
you won't change my mind on that

and all the "victimless crimes" you keep talking about have let's say "passive victims" or "would be victims"
and you don't directly say it but it feels like you are constantly yelling "VICTIMLESS CRIMES ARE FUCKING BAD AND SHOULD NOT EXIST" internally
and I do not agree on that either, if a crime is truly "victimless", but you broke a law, then you should be punished for it

>>56091596
The aim is to discredit your post by providing an argument you can't respond to. Not to change your mind.

>>56091592
It's an image format, not a program. Any program that can view images should be able to interpret that new format then.

>>56091615
Then the format would be. You have a huge set of numbers there that are absolutely required if you want to translate chrome exe into CP. Those numbers would be illegal.

>>56091583
What if you wrote an essay that, when given certain boundaries, looked exactly like black and white cp from really far away?

>>56091633
>You have a huge set of numbers there that are absolutely required if you want to translate chrome exe into CP.
I do not think so. Like I said, it could display other images as well.

death to pedos imho

from a law perspective whatever normalises pedo acts r bad.

cp is bad.

working off prosecutions, bunch of prosectued pedos hoard cp

pedos film, hoard and trade cp

cp normalises child rape

cp is bad

pedos r bad

>>56091633
that would make every file format illegal

>>56091640
>I do not think so.
Well, you're mistaken about that. You think that you can come up with a function that translates chrome exe into CP picture without involving a huge array of pre-defined numbers, and you are mistaken about that. You can't.

>take a nude picture of yourself when you were 18 - 1 second
>get discovered somehow
>go to jail for possession of cp

>>56091649
No, it wouldn't. No other format interprets a well-known safe sequence of octets (chrome's binary) as CP.

>>56091596
I want to hear your argument why you think you're right and why I'm wrong. You're the cocksucker that tried the hit and run. Modest people do either a real discussion or fuck off from the start.

>I didn't agree
So let's discuss, you fucked off at first and wrote retarded shit like:
>you really think that there is something like a victimless crime, and that bugs me
>you really are too lazy to even think for a second who you might hurt

On the whole last paragraph you're again not respond to my question in my last post, not trying to untangle the semantics problem of us apparently not agreeing on the definition and now you call the universally accepted victimless crimes not victimless crimes. You're simply evading on the shit you brought upon yourself.

>VICTIMLESS CRIMES ARE FUCKING BAD AND SHOULD NOT EXIST" internally
and I do not agree on that either, if a crime is truly "victimless", but you broke a law, then you should be punished for it
See this is the issue. You're maintaining the position that a law (however bad) with 100% no harm should lead to a punishment just because it's the law. This the most blind, retarded stance of buckling under authority just because there is.
How can you argue this? Does this come from wanting retributive punishment? Are you religious? Can you not see that harmful laws exist? There are countries with opposite laws. You have to be one side. The other law must be retarded to you, how can you still be okay with punishments for it?

File: 32523.jpg (10KB, 405x371px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 405x371px

>certain combinations of frogs are banned

File: 1461892998060.jpg (125KB, 500x668px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 500x668px

cat /dev/urandom > topsekret.aes

File: 1450429140261.jpg (62KB, 582x685px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 582x685px

>>56091648
>STOP DOING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!
>HELP ME GOVERNMENT, THAT MAN IS HURTING MY FEELINGS!

if cp hoarding was not charged, industries in south east asia would kick into overtime creating more content

hurr a pedo dl it for free. so what. if cp was not charged there would be pay sites like standard porn model

before child trafficing laws were strengthened pedos would keep their nose clean on home turf and fuck kids in thrid world ( until this day )

pedos are scheming, deviant, dishonest, criminal, morally corruptrd, entitled and.... perverse

>>56091650
Why not? It could just be something incredibly simple that just translates the first how many bytes into a pixel, and just offset the colours to match cp. I think it could work.

>>56091745
>so what.
not an argument
>if cp was not charged there would be pay sites like standard porn model
How? financial support would still be illegal as distribution would still be.
>ean on home turf and fuck kids in thrid world
Still illegal. Not point of the debate. Not an argument.
>pedos are scheming, deviant, dishonest, criminal, morally corruptrd, entitled and.... perverse
Last time I checked you differentiate between child rapists and abuseres, pedophiles (simply people with sexual preferences, like in the DSM) the rest is just a shitpost, keep it going m8

>>56091745
those things already exist through
by your logic why aren't videos of child abuse illegal? Or even regular abuse?

>>56091749
I know it won't work but you're free to try. Chrome binary does not contain CP. To create CP from chrome binary, you need some external information about what to do with octets from Chrome code. That external information would be represented as a bunch of numbers (either just a separate array or a similarly large amount of parameters to operations in formula). You don't even need to create CP - just find any image and try to write code that translates chrome binary into it. Your code will be as large as the image at least.

>>56091721
>the problem with pedophilia is that it hurts the feelings of autists on the internet
This might be the most retarded post I've ever read on 4chan

ummm, as a pedo u will either be bashed on the street or prison.

pedos r the lowest scum to law abiding and criminals ( both groups )

dont fit in anywhere

only pedos stick up for pedos

enjoy getting bashed, pedo

ya man prich it brodda

u rly showd em men

>>56091821

ur comment pushed it over the edge. super showed em even harder mang. next level. go hard u legend.

btw i dnt now how to respond to posts

i'm jus here to say thet you gon get bshd right?

so dont try ha

me hot argments just for the drop by

i dnt thnk it so over the edge myne its just de truf yknow

>>56091773
they r illegal, everything illegal still has an underground rite, although forever more contained than legal, and away from a normalization of abnormal

>>56091895
Yeah dude like weed lol. Like look at the netherlands, it's blaze nation over there LOL
like the CP possession would grow proportionally dude

>>56091862
ur mom should have miscarried. smelly bytch. watermelon. yellow.

>>56091790
>Chrome binary does not contain CP.
Neither does any image file until you interpret it as such. I'm saying there must be a formula that happens to interpret chrome as cp. Just because an image format can interpret things as cp, doesn't mean it will be banned.

>>56091916
haha cp is weed everyone. trust me. trust me. its like weed. haha. trust me guys. its just weed.

>>56091917
Ok, enough with pretending to be retarded. Can all retards leave the thread now please, thanks.

>>56091932
Explain how my analogy to black markets doesn't hold.

>>56091931
I said it before and I will say it as many times as I need to until you understand. There is no such formula - unless the formula is at least as large as a CP picture.

>Neither does any image file until you interpret it as such
That image file was created with intention to be interpreted as original image which is CP. It's sensible to say that it does have information about CP in it.

>>56082550
yes, by most accounts
01101001011011000110110001100101011001110110000101101100
is illegal

plant matter and possesion of child rape material is like comparing moonshine with a snuff movie production companys title library

what is the same except an applied banner of black market

humans have gotten wasted since the dawn i
of time


alah is the most famous pedo, cool rolemodel rite there. better bcome muslim and worship the worlds most famous pedo

>>56091952
>There is no such formula - unless the formula is at least as large as a CP picture.
How can you say that with so much certainty? There are plenty of formulas that get you something more than what the formula is, given a large enough input even.

>>56091982
faglord learn to respond to posts properly or just leave. The argument is that because a black market exists doesn't mean that legalization must mean a big increase (or any at all) of the market.

Your memes are way too fucking dank. Please get a trip or some shit like that.

>>56091988
I can tell that with certainty because things don't appear out of nowhere and to produce CP out of unrelated bytes you need a lot of external information.

>>56092040
apples to oranges

weed doesnt put kids at risk more than a puff of a joint, compared to a fat grey haired pensioner dicking a child, which beyond being abnormal leads to more societal problem, family wise and child mental state.

>>56092043
This is Tupper's self-referential formula.

1/2 < floor(mod(floor(y/17)*2^(-17*floor(x)-mod(floor(y), 17)),2))

It can contain literally any monochrome bitmap, as long as you look at the right place.

Yet it's smaller than an actual image.

How do you explain that?

>>56092081
Here's an explanation: to extract the desired image from that formula, you have to specify coordinates. For any actual photo, those coordinates are going to take more space than JPEG or PNG representation of the photo.

>>56092043
>things don't appear out of nowhere
It's not nowhere, it's an input and a formula.

>and to produce CP out of unrelated bytes you need a lot of external information
That's an assumption that I asked you to clarify, it's not a reason.

2016

look at societies where kid fucking is permitted, all muslim shitholes, poo in loo shitholes

look at societies where it is not

wonder why certain societies have advanced and others remained shitholes, hint: the degree of civilizised nature in 2016

wanting to behave like a muslim or indian in 2016. yuk.

>>56092132
What are you asking to clarify? That chrome binary actually does not contain information related to a photo with CP in it?

>it's an input and a formula.
It's an input that has nothing whatsoever to do with desired output so all information about it must be in formula, so the formula must be as large - at least - as the desired picture.

>>56092114
But the formula is smaller than the picture, even if you said that wasn't a thing, and if we were to put Chrome's code in, it could be possible that cp comes out.

>>56092169
>if we were to put Chrome's code in, it could be possible that cp comes out.
Do you have any proof or evidence to support your claim (apart from WELL I THINK SO)?
The only way that could work is if chrome's executable would already contain information related to CP. Which it does not.

>>56092165
>What are you asking to clarify? That chrome binary actually does not contain information related to a photo with CP in it?
>>56091988
>>There is no such formula - unless the formula is at least as large as a CP picture.
>How can you say that with so much certainty?
Reeding is hart.
>>56092165
>It's an input that has nothing whatsoever to do with desired output
That's assuming you only interpret it as an executable.

>so all information about it must be in formula
No. It's completely possible to use a piece of information that was designed to do one thing as information for another thing.

>so the formula must be as large - at least - as the desired picture.
Considering the assumptions you make to come to this conclusions are false, I can only assume that this is false as well.

Also, you were already proven false on the "formula has to be as large to the picture" thing anyway, I do not know why you cling to it.

>>56092077
Damn, the reading comprehension is so fucking bad. Like show me the post where anyone made an argument that tried to show equivalence between diddling a child a smoking pot jesus christ, you must feel pretty smart. I already explained it to you. Repeating your shit doesn't resolve your fundamental failure to understand the line of arguments.

>>56092200
>The only way that could work is if chrome's executable would already contain information related to CP.
Well, I think it does actually. As does everything in my opinion. Anything can be interpreted to be CP, as long as you interpret it in the right way.

>Which it does not.
How do you know this?

>>56092155
I see. Canada is the most advanced society. QED

>>56092202
your example formula was provided to show two functions towards an image, compression and obfuscation, your point being a point because the end resultant was a desired image, 'intent', so no accident.

>>56092216
>this is what Canadians actually believe

>>56092202
>Also, you were already proven false on the "formula has to be as large to the picture" thing anyway, I do not know why you cling to it.
No I was not. The formula you posted does not represent ANY picture - it's an inifinte large. You have to go to specific coordinates and crop it to retrieve a picture from it. The formula alone does not give you picture.

>How can you say that with so much certainty?
I can tell that with certainty because things don't appear out of nowhere.
Reading is hard, anon.

>That's assuming you only interpret it as an executable.
It has nothing do with CP. However you interpret it has nothing to do with CP. You will only arrive at CP is if your interpretation is rigged to create CP from chrome binary, in which case it's as large as the CP it produces.

>No. It's completely possible to use a piece of information that was designed to do one thing as information for another thing.
There's no practical no theoretical way to achieve what you are suggesting.

>>56092213
>Anything can be interpreted to be CP, as long as you interpret it in the right way.
Oh, of course. But if you're interpreting chrome binary as CP, your method of interpretation will be just as large as the result itself, which is my point in the first place.

>How do you know this?
I'm just assuming. If chrome devs knowingly inserted a way to retrieve CP from its binary, yes, you can do that.

>>56092242
>your example formula
What? I'm speaking hypothetically.

Considering you're not actually refuting anything I said, I can only assume you agree, or at least can't refute what I'm saying.
>>56092262
>No I was not. The formula you posted
What? Again, I'm speaking hypothetically.

>it's an inifinte large. You have to go to specific coordinates and crop it to retrieve a picture from it. The formula alone does not give you picture.
Oh, okay, so that's how that formula works. I'd argue that that would contain cp then though. Also, the point was only that a formula has to be as large as the image to be possible, which is what was proven false.

>things don't appear out of nowhere.
Okay, and this is not nowhere as I already said. I read that and commented on that. You did not refute the refutations.
>>56092262
>It has nothing do with CP.
See >>56092202
>That's assuming you only interpret it as an executable.
>>56092262
>However you interpret it has nothing to do with CP.
So you're saying the hypothetical formula wouldn't be banned? Okay, thanks.
Argument over I guess.

>There's no practical no theoretical way to achieve what you are suggesting.
Simple. Take an image, use it as a keyfile for an encrypted database. That way you have a piece of information that was designed to do one thing as information for another thing.

>Oh, of course.
So chrome does contain information related to CP, as does everything.

>I'm just assuming.
Assumptions are bad arguments.

>>56092343
>So you're saying the hypothetical formula wouldn't be banned? Okay, thanks.
Yes. A formula that is not specifically designed to produce CP from chrome binary code will not be banned. It also will not produce CP from chrome binary code.

>Argument over I guess.
My argument is that formula is as large as the image you're producing - not that it does not exist.

>Simple. Take an image, use it as a keyfile for an encrypted database.
And the encrypted database is 1. a part of formula (it certainly is not part of input) 2. as large as the result you're getting from it.

>So chrome does contain information related to CP, as does everything.
No, it contains no information related to CP, as I clarified in the next sentence which you conveniently ignored.

>Assumptions are bad arguments.
You're retarded. I don't usually call people names on 4chan. But that together with your "Oh, okay, so that's how that formula works" does it. You are the most stupid person I talked to on 4chan in a very long while.

>there is a number that is a picture, a video fragment, or a sound clip of you and your loving wife and children, living a blissfull happy life
>in fact, there are infinite of those numbers

The very universe exists to torment me.

>>56092428
>Yes. A formula that is not specifically designed to produce CP from chrome binary code will not be banned.
That's not what you said earlier. You were more global with it.

>My argument is that formula is as large as the image you're producing
That was already proven false.

>And the encrypted database is 1. a part of formula (it certainly is not part of input) 2. as large as the result you're getting from it.
Okay? That does not refute what I'm saying there anyway.

>No, it contains no information related to CP
But you said everything can be interpreted as CP, thus everything contains information related to CP.

>as I clarified in the next sentence which you conveniently ignored.
Not really. Also, that's based on information that was already refuted.

>You're retarded.
Top kek, assumptions are bad arguments mate, you can't argue that.

>But that together with your "Oh, okay, so that's how that formula works" does it.
What? Just because I didn't know how a formula that somebody else posted and that that person only briefly explained? I didn't even comment on that before I knew how it worked mate.

>>56092486
>But you said everything can be interpreted as CP, thus everything contains information related to CP.
That's lack of basic knowledge in information theory. Your whole argument is from the standpoint of ignorance. No, you didn't refute anything. You just posted more ignorance that you incorrectly interpreted as refutations.

I do not want to convince you. I'm just saying here and now that the formula sufficiently smaller than target image does not exist. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine.

If you want to prove me wrong, provide a picture and a formula that will turn chrome binary into it.

>>56092515
>Your whole argument is from the standpoint of ignorance.
I disagree, only that part might be. You can't assume that all is wrong just because a single part is wrong.

>No, you didn't refute anything. You just posted more ignorance that you incorrectly interpreted as refutations.
No, I did on multiple occasions.

>I'm just saying here and now that the formula sufficiently smaller than target image does not exist.
Again, that was already proven false.

>If you want to prove me wrong, provide a picture and a formula that will turn chrome binary into it.
How would that prove you wrong? That's a different thing.

>>56083637
MODS

File: 1469434274140.jpg (46KB, 435x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 435x500px

>>56092155
>America gained it's power and prominent position in the world during the industrial revolution
>child/adult relationships were perfectly legal back then
Really makes you think

>>56092556
>>If you want to prove me wrong, provide a picture and a formula that will turn chrome binary into it.
>How would that prove you wrong? That's a different thing.
My claim is just one: a formula that accepts chrome binary as input and produces a certain picture as output would be as large as that certain picture. It could be someone what smaller if you use a more efficient compression algorithm than the one the picture is presented with originally.

To prove that claim of mine wrong, all you need to do is to provide a picture, a chrome binary, and a formula, and to demonstrate that the formula is sufficiently smaller than the formula. My original claim is here: >>56091633 >>56091650 >>56091790

>>56092605
>My claim is just one
Then don't post different claims.

>a formula that accepts chrome binary as input and produces a certain picture as output would be as large as that certain picture.
I asked you multiple times why you can say that with so much certainty, and you haven't answered yet. I can only assume from this that you're bullshitting. I do not think that the person questioning the claim needs to provide proof for why it's wrong, at least not if the claim poster doesn't provide anything.
>>56092605
>My original claim is here: >>56091633
Nice how the original post doesn't even include the "original claim". Just saying.

>>56082550
>yfw those combinations are encryption
>yfw strong encryption will be banned in the future

>>56092654
I gave you the answer. I explained my reasoning very well. You did not refute my reasoning, you only made ignorant posts that you think make sense.

>>56092710
>I gave you the answer.
Answers that were refuted at best. Ignored at most.

>You did not refute my reasoning
I did.

>you only made ignorant posts that you think make sense.
That's based on only a single part that wasn't even explained. I disagree.

If I get called to jury duty, hypothetically speaking, and i vote "not guilty" on a case where a man will be sentenced to jail for Lolicon hentai manga, does he get sent to jail or does my vote hold the case open until I change my mind?

File: 1469918975683.jpg (82KB, 789x1012px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 789x1012px

>>56082550
>having sex with people with a certain combination of decimal digits is illegal

I'm seeing an anon get utterly, irrevocably, undeniably, non-arguably, BTFOd ITT

>>56092847

Hung jury. The case is declared a mistrial and the state basically gets a do-over with a brand new jury.

File: Steven Universe fandom.gif (650KB, 400x308px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 400x308px

>>56092872

>>56092741
If you don't understand my reasoning, that's your problem. It's a problem that stems from your lack of basic understanding of the subject. If you think that you refuted anything, even though you didn't, that's your problem, with same origin.

My explanation is solid. If you don't want to accept it, that's fine. My original claim still stands unrefuted - all you did was demonstrate that you're incapable of understanding my reasoning. I don't care if you understand it or not.

What I do care is that my original claim (which is in my posts I quoted - are you so slow that you don't even see it there?) stands - and it does until you present a function that creates a photo from chrome binary.

Say I have a video of myself masturbating when I was underage. Is that CP?

>>56090137
underrated

>>56093128
>If you don't understand my reasoning, that's your problem.
There is no reason to think that I do not understand your reasoning.

>If you think that you refuted anything, even though you didn't
There's no reason to believe that I didn't refute anything.

>My explanation is solid. If you don't want to accept it, that's fine. My original claim still stands unrefuted
False.

>all you did was demonstrate that you're incapable of understanding my reasoning. I don't care if you understand it or not.
False.

>(which is in my posts I quoted - are you so slow that you don't even see it there?)
I saw it, I said it wasn't in the original post. Which is true. It might be "implied" but it's not actually there until you explain it in a later post.

>my original claim (which is in my posts I quoted - are you so slow that you don't even see it there?) stands
I disagree, however, that's not what I was arguing anyway.

>and it does until you present a function that creates a photo from chrome binary.
I disagree. Presenting an unsupported claim does not mean it's true merely because the opposing party can't refute it in a specific way.
That's all you're doing anyway, presenting unsupported claims and that saying they have to be true merely because they're not refuted (in specific ways). That's not a valid way to argue.

>-
Also, this symbol isn't the symbol that you think it is. Technically you're posting gibberish.

>>56093617
>There is no reason to think that I do not understand your reasoning.
There is. You think that anything has information in it related to to everything (as seen in >>56092486) which makes you either grossly uninformed or insane. That's enough for me. You're free to disagree, but it won't change my perception of you.
Skipping the rest.

>>56082550

>certain combinations of elements are illegal

kys OP

>>56093223
Possibly, but I don't know whether or not you'd be arrested for having it. I've heard stories of kids being arrested for sharing pictures of themselves, but never of anyone being arrested just for having pictures.

>>56093658
>You think that anything has information in it related to to everything (as seen in >>56092486(You)) which makes you either grossly uninformed or insane.
Again, that's based on only a single part that wasn't even explained. I disagree.

>Skipping the rest.
Falls right in line with your previous M.O. yeah. Good that you decide to conveniently skip why your arguments are flawed from the ground up.

>>56093930
If you really feel that you want to give this a go one more time, explain your reasoning thoroughly. Point out to a part of my reasoning, and then provide a clear explanation of why it is flawed for it, without just saying you explained it previously. Just one is enough. I repeated my arguments enough times and every time your response is just "nope already proven wrong".

>>56093978
Please don't just jump into arguments that aren't related to you. I'm not going to explain the whole argument to somebody completely new. At least read the thread if you're actually interested.

>>56094021
I am the person that started it.

>>56094034
No, I am. What the fuck are you even trying to do here? Fuck off cunt, read the thread.

>>56089420
retard cp is only illegal because the kids enjoy it too much and it makes the old cunts jealous. not to mention that it goes against evolutionary theory itself to state human kids evolved to not do sex when monkeys do it just fine. personally all of us would have been happy to get laid as kids, but the stupider among us just can't make a logical deduction no matter how hard they try.

>>56094044
You may write whatever bullshit you wish, but you still won't be able to create a function that translates chrome binary into CP and is smaller than the CP picture it produces.

Are you skeptical of my claims? Are you attempting to demonstrate my reasoning false? Too bad. None of that is meaningful. The meaningful part is you will never be able, no matter how hard you try, to achieve what you try so hard to demonstrate you can. I am happy about that outcome. Are you?

>>56094112
Why do you keep replying to me?

>>56094119
The first post was mine, and after that I'm just replying to your responses.
Why do you keep replying to me?

>>56094129
>The first post was mine
No dude, it was mine.

>Why do you keep replying to me?
Mostly because I wanted to know why you were replying to me, and claiming that you are me really. I can only assume you're fucking insane or something, because obviously you aren't me.

>>56094148
You lost.

>>56094157
What kind of indecipherable gibberish is this then? What the fuck.
Please, don't just jump into arguments that have nothing to do with you. Just fucking lurk for a second you cunt.

>>56094182
You lost, anon. I gave you a last chance to explain and you dodged it using some bullshit excuse.

>>56094464
Lost what even?
Explain what? The whole fucking argument? Go read the thread if you're interested, I'm not going to spoonfeed something to somebody just jumping into shit. I posted arguments, other people posted arguments, if you're interested in what I and other people posted it's right there, but I'm not going to argue something that's done and closed to new people just because they can't be bothered to read the thread.
Fucking lurk.

>>56094622
There is no need to pretend.

>>56094679
Okay, clearly you're just shitposting now. If you're actually interested in the argument, the thread's right here for you to read. I'm not going to explain it all to you.

>>56088297
MODS

>>56094698
You're not convincing anyone. There are only two people reading this piece of shit of a thread: me and you.

File: mpv-shot0039.png (961KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 960x720px

>>56082611
legalize it

File: 1451794975860.gif (87KB, 209x172px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 209x172px

>all these pedos itt

>>56094812
>not smoking weed while watching CP

I bet you're not even a libertarian.

>>56089445
You are abetting the crime.
You are actively encouraging the rape of children for further creation of CP.
I highly doubt you receoved ot by accodemg amd said "this os horroble don't ever do it again, i amn otifying the authorities" no you are actively seekimg out the material and saying thanks! More peoples, thus advocating further child abuse.

Would you consider being the cameraman a victimless crime? I mean you didn't rape the kid, but you also played an actice role in the crime, amd encouraged it when you had a morale obligation to instead report the offender to the police of possible or at least take no part in the crime.

>>56088297
Don't do it, it produces nerve gas

>>56085102
Yea transmission of data over internet lines has nothing to do with the existence of electrons in memory!

File: 1462399548767-1.jpg (558KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 2560x1600px

>>56094812
>implying there's anything wrong with liking little girls

If you like little boys though you're a sick cunt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY2aj3ba7pA
This thread.......im disappointed in everyone here

>>56082550
Is it bad that i want to twist her nipples while ravaging her chrysanthemum and cooch?

File: 1443567207160.gif (1MB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 600x338px

>>56095886
>If you like little boys though you're a sick cunt.
Not if they are white boys.
According to Feminism, white boys should be sexually loved so they can grow properly. They should also be encouraged to wear feminine clothes.

File: 14691627135981.png (111KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 500x500px

>>56096166
Nigga that's gay and unnatural.

>>56096367
It's progressive and very natural!

>>56095695
>You are actively encouraging the rape of children for further creation of CP
explain how. Merely possessing has multiple arguments that go against it.
Just read the actual thread if you want to read them.
>Would you consider being the cameraman a victimless crime?
No, you're actively producing CP not mentioning not acting on preventing a child rape while you could. What a shit argument.

>>56096386
By downloading it you are encouraging it.
Do you think the scene would crack games if nobody gave a shit? You are basically a patreon of their art. Their fans, their supoorters etc. I mean before monetization of youtube people still gave a shit about view count. 200k hits and likes might make you make another video. 0 might not.
You are normalizing the behaviour.

>>56096697
so you would deny all those poor girls their fair occupation and have them starve? fucking liberals

>>56096739
What are you even fucking talking about?
Also protip: liberal doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>56096697
No, not necessarily. There can be no trace exchange for example via anonymous downloads and there's no possible connection for encouragement.

>>56096817
They still know it is being consumed.
All the shitty TOR sites amd forums and whatnot exist in the first place implying there is an audience.
Secondly you aren't really facing the reality here. A lot of this shit isn't at all like that. The last bust i read about was a forum that required you contribute or get removed.
I also never even touched the children's privacy rights.

>>56096697
>Do you think the scene would crack games if nobody gave a shit?
The crack scene didn't begin in the first place by anyone giving a shit, beyond the cracker being driven by curiosity, sense of challenge, and an ego boost from seeing people thankful for providing it.
>Do you think the artists would make art if nobody gave a shit?
The field of art didn't begin in the first place by anyone giving a shit, beyond the artist being driven by curiosity, creativity, sense of challenge, and an ego boost from seeing people admire his work afterwards.

Should i continue? Or are you one of those daft idiots who think Humanity is driven by absolutes and some kind of script your dumb ass invented, rather than by individualism, variety, and diverse interests.

>>56082550
>certain combinations of 0s and 1s are legal

>>56096864
Yeah and that start as soon as they spread it once.
>you contribute or get removed
Yeah, that's nice doesn't concern sole possession sentencing of min. 5 years and shit like that.

>>56096895
>crackers don't paste their fucking sc5n5 names everywhere or make retarded nfo files cause they just care about the challenge. They don't even use usenet or distribute the files at all. Just sit on their hdd as a self reward?
Oh no wait what's this.
>ego boost from people thankful for it.
YOU MEAN PEOPLE ARE ENCOURAGING IT BY "BEING THANFUL" AND DOWNLOADING IT!?!? WOW THAT'S NOT MY POINT EXACTLY OR ANYTHING.

>artists don't distribute or sign their pieces.
No wait yoy agreed with me again on the ego thing.

Im not saying they don't enjoy raping kids or whatnot.
But by being involved in the distribution you are as you put it giving them an "ego boost from seeing people thankful for providing it."
It's a essentially a support group for it.
Normalizing the behaviour and saying "hey we are like you!" and whatnot. Instead of saying "you are disgusting and need to be put down violently" why do you think they distribute it in the first place? Doesn't impact their personal collection or ability to rape kids. It just lets them share their "achievement" and normalize their behaviour etc.

>>56096739
Yes, I would rather have children do anything else than being used as sex slaves.
What is wrong with you?

>>56096933
>reality doesn't effect reality.
Okay.
If you mean retarded laws about loli or a 16 texting out nudes sure. But someone seeking out material of child exploitation on TOR are encouraging thr behaviour. If we don't take action and say "whatever they didn't rape the kid" we are normalizing and accepting it, and in turn encouraging it. People could then flaunt their cp collection and child rapists could say "hey that's my work! Look at all these paedos im not a monster deserving of death!" and in turn the exploited children would grossly have their right to privacy infringed.

>>56097045
>YOU MEAN PEOPLE ARE ENCOURAGING IT BY "BEING THANFUL"
Those people didn't exist before the first cracker started his work dumbass.
What do you think motivated the first cracker? Because it certainly wasn't other people, since you can't guarantee awareness, nor do you set upon such a laborious job for the sole goal of people backpatting you.
The first motivation is the long-term motivation (challenge, applying your skills, creating something for the sake of creation). The people giving an ego boost don't substitute that sense of accomplishment. And even then, some people don't get ego boosts at all, because there's this thing called "personality" which doesn't have an absolute script, ergo my mentioning it.

Are you still mentally retarded anon?

Or should we now start also hunting down news reporters and their cameramen for never doing anything to stop the rape, murder, and genocide, they were witnessing first-hand?

Your logic is as idiotic as your mind is narrow.

>>56085450
>not being on a list in 2016

FUCK off normalfag

File: image.jpg (97KB, 834x530px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 834x530px

>>56085450
>thinking everyone here isn't on a list

>>56097157
>do you think that motivated the first cracker
Yes. Why wouls they distribute it then retard?
I've encoded a shit tonne of bluray of movies in my life, never distributed one because i don't care about these things.
I'm not saying their aren't paedos who don't care about support, ego, or a community, they exist. There are paedos tgst fit your description. They also don't fucking distribute their exploits. Why would they? Triple their risk, actively take up the steps of distribution because they are indifferent about it?
>never doing anything to stop.
Are you fucking retarded what news org shows a child getting raped? They all respect victim privacy rights, and DO actually help sometimes, bring public awareness, put a violent criminald face on blast. They don't go "lol check out this sick police shooting!" fuck yeah police keep it up fuck niggers and then go home and wank to it. Their goal is the opposite to bring the misconduct to light.

>>56094105
As a child you are not mentally developed enough to make that choice and can be easily coerced into doing something that will leave mental damage for a lifetime.

You are literally defending child rape you sick fuck

Bet you wouldn't be as proud of your beliefs in prison, where you belong you sick, sick fuck.

Holy shit Nvidia fags btfo.
AMD master race, 1260fps no probs.

>>56097263
>Yes. Why wouls they distribute it then retard?
Because you retard, they managed to do something successfully and wager it would be a nice thing to release it into the wild for shits and giggles if not ego-boost AFTERWARDS.
There's a good reason i used the word "afterwards" my little illiterate.
>I've encoded a shit tonne of bluray of movies in my life
That's not an accomplishment. That's something kids do in special class with a blindfold.
And you didn't encode shit to test skills, to challenge yourself, or to be creative. You did it for your hoarding purposes.
Crackers and artists aren't hoarders, they are creators and modifiers.
Your lack of basic rational psychology 101 just to fit your narrative is astounding, ergo i called you more narrow minded than your ass sphincter is tight.
>they all respect victim privacy rights
So do the CP cameramen who blurr the face of the children.
>and do actually help sometimes
Yeah, by being civilized and not getting in the way of someone when they are doing something (the perp)
>bring public awareness
Just like CP cameramen do, imagine that!
>put a violent criminal's face on blast
Just like CP cameramen do!

>They don't go "lol check out this sick police shooting!"
>media don't go "lol check out this sick chaos, we need to take over that shit and inflate it for views"

I swear, you are the stupidest poster i've seen today.
You are the precise example of when morality is pushed over the border into stupidity.
You are the reason lawyers exist. Because society needs someone who actually knows shit so idiots like you can't fuck everything up. Sure some lawyers will become dubious, but you yourself will never cease being retarded.

>>56097440
>afterwards
Yes so otherpeople could share in their ""accomplishment"" this is abetting.
>that's not an accomplishment.
Neither is raping a child. Seriously get help.
Also there is an "encoding scene" i don't see why they are different in this analysis. (also judging by their shitty ads work id say its a skill).
>they don't get in the way of the perp.
This literally never happens. Any reporter who witnedses a crime would call the police immediately and any decent human being would try and help. They don't passively observe an actual crime. When they distribute footage the perp is probably against it. In cases where the perp wants it distributed it causes an ethical dilemma.
>just like cp cameramen do.
I can admit i don't watch CP but i don't think they are posting clear photos of the perps face with his information as a warning or at all.
>bring public awareness. Oh so videos are sent to news orgs and thr police? I thought they were posted on the deepweb, my mistake. You wouldn't be retarded enough to think that cp forums on the deep web were "public awareness" normal people don't go there.
>giant ad hominem.
Why is it paedos can't stick to the facts or the points?

>>56097595
>Any reporter who witnedses a crime would call the police immediately, risking other reporters getting in on the gig
KEK
>and any decent human being would try and help.
Yeah man, look at all those statues of hero reporters.
Oh shit, there are none i guess?
>They don't passively observe an actual crime.
They do. Political non-involvement, and other non-involvement contrats and shit.
>When they distribute footage the perp is probably against it.
Half the cases show that the perps enjoy their fame being spread by the media, thus spouting the "glorification debate" like in the case of mass shooters.
>but i don't think they are posting clear photos of the perps face with his information as a warning or at all.
So don't reporters in many cases, since they are too afraid to get close to the rape, murder, and mayhem.

At this point, you are sounding like one of those idiots who believe the media is always righteous and unbiased, and always moral and just.
Why? Because you are butthurt about the counter-implications.
Why? That's for others reading these posts to figure out.
All in all, i give you a 3/10 on your mental capabilities.
3 for willpower, because it takes a lot of willpower to bullshit so much scripted bias towards reporters and news media just to defend a point, even though you know you are wrong on most counts.

>>56097726
>kek
Find me one instance of a reporter passively watching a murder or rape
>political non involvement.
Has nothing to do with fucking passively observe a crime you moron.
It's to protect them for reporting on a political movement from a role of none involvement. Passively watching a cadual murder or chils rape is not the same as a political uprising or protest turned riot etc.
>mass shooters.
Yes i already mentioned the dilemma giving them the attention they want vs denying people their right to know. Cp makes it easy since the perp doesn't want his face on blasr 90% of the time anyway, otherwise same logic would apply.
>reports to scared to get close.
Ofc but it's not at all the same. A reporter would love the info. The actual cameraman of CP probably already knows the guys identity nd doesn't share it anway. Besides you are contradicting yourself here you agreed
>>56096386
He is actively creating co amd could actively prevent it.

Now you go on a completely irrelevant tyrade about the media. I never once said i solely trust the media that they are self rightous or unbiased. But breitbart sucking trumos dick or msnbc eating out clinton is not the same as aiding amd abetting child rape. Nor is it relevant to this discussion.
Anyway you have slided your level of discourse to simply
>lol im smart and your dumb Xd.
A level i do not wish to stoop to, so good day, have fun on the watch list!

File: 2013-05-28_191000.jpg (595KB, 1713x1037px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 1713x1037px

>>56097944
>Find me one instance of a reporter passively watching a murder or rape
Sure, you can pick from any of the many war journalists or journalists in Mexico doing the cartels.
Hell i'll do you even better, i'll give you journalists who aided and abetted crime (non of that political state secrets and hacker shit, but actual engineering and inflation of crime to make a story out of it),
with a simple click of "journalist" "corruption" "charges" via google!

>B-BUT ANON, JOURNALISTS CAN'T BE CORRUPT OR CRIMINAL
>THEY AREN'T HUMAN BEINGS
>THEY ARE RIGHTEOUS ROBOTS
kek

>Has nothing to do with fucking passively observe a crime you moron.
Yeah, that's why the word "excuse" was invented. Because you can excuse anything if you just use the right words!

>But breitbart sucking trumos dick or msnbc eating out clinton is not the same as aiding amd abetting child rape.
It is when your politicians and government are also doing it, supported by breibart and msnbc who don't dare report DICK after getting a fat wad of cash to shut the fuck up, or an even better story as smoke-screen.
Enjoy pic related.

>>56098238
>child pornography is okay because sometimes people, even those in the media, commit other nonrelated crimes. Occasionally avoiding charges or sentencing.
Fine fucking logic m80
Up next. Why ISIS are the good guys because sometimes bad things hapoen to good people!

>>56098380
I don't give a shit about the debate of child pornography son.
I only give a shit about your cute stupidity in defending journalists for the same shit you accuse CP cameramen of, with cute and stupid excuses and word games to justify shit.
You yourself aid child porn by just talking about it, because talking about it and being emotionally invested showcases an interest by your logic, and a market for trolling (fucking kids to infuriate people, because if you are fucking for others to see it, you might as well fuck for others to feel rage).
Even negative rep is good rep.
Do you vote for multiculturalism? Well too bad, you are also aiding child porn because some cultures don't give a fuck about age when fucking and it is their "right" according to both culture and law that was birthed from it.

>certain opcodes are illegal

>>56098488
Hoky fuck it's alex Jones.
Hey man huge fan.
Can you say "WE HAVE TO BREAK THE CONDITIONING" for me?