Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: McKayla Maroney -- I Was Underage in Hacked Nude Photos [View all]Orrex
(67,159 posts)187. Well, you've revealed yourself as a desperate liar.
Since I am able to rebut your lies, I have no qualms about calling you out as a liar.
Your insitence that women who are victimized by these hackers will be fine, unless they're underaged and then they could be charged too, is fantasy.
I have made no such claim nor any claim like it. In attributing that claim to me, you are lying.
She isn't going to be punished for being naughty.
Nor have I suggested that she should be, so again you are lying. "Being naughty" isn't a crime. However, the manufacture of child pornography is a crime. If she is guilty of a crime, then she should face the penalty for that crime. If she is not guilty of a crime, then she should face no penalty.
In your desperation you are not only lying, but you are also drawing false equivalence between "naughtiness" (a more or less playful undermining of social mores) and "crime" (a direct violation of law). Every statement that you make based on this false equivalence is based on a fallacy and requires no more rebuttal than pointing out the fallacy.
In your desperation to paint her as a victim (clinging to the retrograde "woman as victim" stereotype), you lie about me, you dodge questions, you make baseless claims, you ignore inconvenient facts, and you cherry-pick those facts that--in a very specific and carefully chosen context--seem to make your argument credible.
I truly didn't intend to reply to you, but since you were outright lying about me, I felt it appropriate to refute your deliberate falsehoods.
At this point you are free to pretend that you've proven your point or won the argument or whatever will satisfy your need to portray Ms. Maroney as a helpless victim. Hell, you're even free to lie about me again, because you'd probably do it anyway.
I'm going to be putting you on Ignore in about a minute, so go ahead and masturbate in front of a mirror or anything else that you do. I don't care.
You're dishonest and you don't know how to support an argument. But worst of all, you're boring.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
204 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Her celebrity status is irrelevant. The government isn't about to go after teens
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#68
Those cases weren't like this, because these women didn't "send" their photos to anyone.
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#169
You don't have to push a hundred buttons to get the phone working. Most settings are default,
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#69
It didn't with my iPhone. That was the default setting. But it wouldn't matter anyway.
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#172
And I bet you are in the solid majority. All these DUers who condemn these young women
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#70
How do you know your home wi fi can't be broken into? Or do you not have wi fi? nt
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#193
So? The world is set up to take advantage of people who are less smart. That doesn't mean
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#71
It's a ridiculous aspect of law that punishes a person for taking photos of themselves.
NutmegYankee
Sep 2014
#9
You can place reasonable limitations, like no commercial use of underage photos.
NutmegYankee
Sep 2014
#17
If both parties consented to take it, it should be handled just like how we handle it for adults.
NutmegYankee
Sep 2014
#24
I'm sure a felony conviction and permanent registration as a sex offender will serve them well.
NutmegYankee
Sep 2014
#173
Having not looked, I can't say content, but there are non-sex reasons to take unclothed pics.
politicat
Sep 2014
#19
For the same reason that medical photos are not CP when in a file, but become so when
politicat
Sep 2014
#66
Because the law can define anything as it wishes. Every naked picture of a child
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#79
Legally, child porn is defined by the nature of the photo. Nudity isn't even required.
Xithras
Sep 2014
#85
Fair point, also, the pictures might not have been taken/uploaded to "the cloud" from USA.
MADem
Sep 2014
#142
I think that "Porn" is in the eye of the beholder. Why do you say she "did" the porn herself just
world wide wally
Sep 2014
#25
Look you have a whole thread of people here who can explain things much better
Kalidurga
Sep 2014
#178
My undestanding is that production/possession is a crime even without distribution.
LisaL
Sep 2014
#53
But no one here has asserted that that's the case, so why do you keep repeating it?
Orrex
Sep 2014
#98
I'm lying by saying you said she could be charged. Then you go on and state she should be charged.
kcr
Sep 2014
#188
Well, see, the LAW would disagree with you----indeed, it is the very law that MM is now citing. And
WinkyDink
Sep 2014
#125
Ah. So a minor can TAKE the photo, but if someone else SEES it, she can cry "Child porn!"?
WinkyDink
Sep 2014
#128
Because stealing it and distributing it so others can wank off to it shouldn't upset her one bit?
kcr
Sep 2014
#137
Fine and dandy! And the hacker "wanted to" hack! I don't GADamn, but for her to think of using the
WinkyDink
Sep 2014
#130
Not the same. The hacker "wanted to" break the law. The hacker is the criminal,
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#170
I believe an underage head photoshopped onto an over-21 naked body is still considered child porn.
Nye Bevan
Sep 2014
#28
But making child porn and possessing it is a crime. Even if photos aren't distributed.
LisaL
Sep 2014
#51