So I'm rebuilding one of my computers.
Get the new install of Windows up & running.
Go to the Windows Update website.
Choose "Custom Download" as opposed to "Express Download", so I can pick and choose the updates I want to download.
I decline the "Windows Verification Tool".
A warning pops up telling me I really shouldn't decline this choice.

What if just "the act" of declining this download implies guilt?! (running a hacked version of Windows)

*****************************************************************

And while we are on the subject of "implied guilt":

Nowadays, when a person is accused of practicly any crime, the first thing law enforcement does is sieze the suspects computer. On that computer may be pictures of nude or scantly clad women.
Some may be petite, dressed in prep-school uniforms, licking a lolipop.
How does law enforcement detirmine the age of the subject before charging you with a sex crime?
Is the act of looking at pictures of someone pretending to be younger then they are, a crime?

And NO, i don't look at that kind of stuff!
I like my women a little older & heavier then most guys I know!
No models or roleplayers.
I like the "imperfections" of real-world women.
"Woman Next Door" kind of stuff.

The reason I ask is a guy I was talking to at work likes the "plaid-skirt school uniform" kind of stuff.
We were disscussing wiether that could or would be concidered illegal.
He said they all have to be legally over 18 to pose.
I say how do you ever really know?
In my opinion, it's just not worth the risk looking at pictures like that.

So how does law enforcement determine weither a picture like that is legal & illegal?
Do they have to prove the models age, or do they go on looks alone?

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 05-16-2006).]

"And NO, i don't look at that kind of stuff!
I like my women a little older & heavier then most guys I know!
No models or roleplayers.
I like the "imperfections" of real-world women.
"Woman Next Door" kind of stuff."

Are you sure? You're sounding kinda guilty, there partner!!

Just kidding, I used to look at that stuff....

the burden of proof is on the prosecution... in reality...........

My grandfather (rest in peace) was a cop. I had some lengthy conversations with him regarding the law and what not. He admitted, or rather implied, that he has fabricated evidence to hold the "bad guys". So given a sexual predator, and some young "looking" pictures.... it wouldn't surprise me that some photos of a 5 year old would appear magically during the trial.

The question becomes, how do you know they're "bad guys"? That question wasn't fully answered to my satisfaction.

quote Originally posted by GDS-1: "And NO, i don't look at that kind of stuff! Are you sure? You're sounding kinda guilty, there partner!!

And I knew it would!
But no, I really don't.
I like women over 30.
They know the territory!

Watch out! Big Brother might read this thread.

Regarding Microsoft, just give them the one-finger salute and continue on with your business.

Regarding the girly pics, my opinion is that people should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You're not forcing girls to pose for you, just enjoying the fruits of their labor, so to speak. If the girl posing for the photos is age 18+, then it's her choice (and responsibility). If the girl is under 18, then her parents/guardians need to get involved.

Of course, this isn't a view that Mainstream America shares. We are a nation of hypocritical authoritarian busybodies.

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: Watch out! Big Brother might read this thread. Regarding Microsoft, just give them the one-finger salute and continue on with your business. Regarding the girly pics, my opinion is that people should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You're not forcing girls to pose for you, just enjoying the fruits of their labor, so to speak. If the girl posing for the photos is age 18+, then it's her choice (and responsibility). If the girl is under 18, then her parents/guardians need to get involved. Of course, this isn't a view that Mainstream America shares. We are a nation of hypocritical authoritarian busybodies.

agreed. only if the age viewed is questionable. if you cant tell if shes 17 or 18 or 19.. not your fault. now young young... thats a no no in my book. id like to make those people kiss the curb...

quote Originally posted by BobadooFunk: id like to make those people kiss the curb...

"American History X" style.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 05-16-2006).]

What about the tattoo / pierce rule, one must be 18 to have such decorations...or do they?

[This message has been edited by achawkins (edited 05-16-2006).]

There have already been convictions in the U.S. for child p__n online based on pics of adults who "appeared" under age. (and it was a court "expert" who decided what "appears underage" means) It was a depiction of c.p., so the person was convicted. It's completely ridiculous. If someone is actually a predator, that's one thing, but to have a pic of an 18 year old in pig tails and school girl outfit be considered the same as assaulting a 5 year old is just wrong.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-16-2006).]

I don't think pedophiles consciously choose to be as such. It's something more deeply rooted... maybe even genetic. The point is that you can't "reform" a pedophile. He will always have that itch to scratch.

The question is: would you rather he satisfied his urges sitting behind his computer, or in the bushes behind your child's school?

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: The question is: would you rather he satisfied his urges sitting behind his computer, or in the bushes behind your child's school?

hmm.. interesting question. It could be argued that there has to be someone to *make* the movies though...

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: The question is: would you rather he satisfied his urges sitting behind his computer, or in the bushes behind your child's school?

The experts contend that viewing such images will lead them to the next step...............sexual assault.
With leads to abduction, and eventually murder.

But it's the age old question:
Does media, (killing, murder, sex, tv, video games, music, pictures) cause people to do those things?
Is it the fault of the media, or the individual?

"Who/what killed that guy, the gun, or the guy who squeezed the trigger?"
Before you answer, remember, gun companies and tobbaco manufactures have been sued!
If I remember, even stores have been sued for selling guns!

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 05-16-2006).]

quote ryan.hess said: It could be argued that there has to be someone to *make* the movies though...

Yup, and if that someone happens to live in another country, there isn't much we can do about it.

That went from wondering whether or not to accept that "genuine" thing...to kiddie pron?



Dude, EAT SOMETHING!!!!


Just don't eat fried dog poo, like "YOU KNOW WHO"...

boonie started it!

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: hmm.. interesting question. It could be argued that there has to be someone to *make* the movies though...

Very true. But the precident has already been set that even if the models are legal age, if it depicts c.p., you can be convicted.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: The experts contend that viewing such images will lead them to the next step...............sexual assault. With leads to abduction, and eventually murder.

And here's the big issue. Viewing such images may or may not lead to the next step ... but you can still be convicted before you take that next step. It's tantamount to being convicted of murder for watching someone get killed on T.V.

Of course you have to protect people and children especially, but what about the individual's rights? Is it right to lock someone up because they've done something that suggests they MIGHT do something bad in the future?

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-16-2006).]

Its been at least 15 years since up here in kaNUTa, the courts decided CARTOONS, which might be "construed" as depicting underage-ers neked, or in questionable situations constitutes "kiddie **** ".......Hell, the have even been cases of parent locked up for taking pics of thier infants in the bath.

Then again, the P-C liberalist social-engineers and thier judiciary up here have never been accused of sanity.

No anime for you then.

That's something that's bugged me about most anime... the characters in Japanese anime are usually portrayed as 13-15 in sexual situations, sometimes even younger. That isn't including the **** stuff, just dramas and robot/ninja/card fighting type stuff. This is broadcast TV stuff in Japan, and the manga they read can be incredibly explicit and is acceptable subway reading material. Apparently they leave seperating fantasy and reality to the viewer... although I've heard that with the legal restrictions on real **** , and social traditions, there are some real freaks over there.