NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,488428,00.html

Oh, no. Don't post naked pictures of me. Here, let me suck you off.

The human race is utterly low and disgusting most of the time. Why does this surprise anyone?

MILWAUKEE — An 18-year-old U.S. student is accused of posing as a girl on Facebook, tricking at least 31 male classmates into sending him naked photos of themselves and then blackmailing some for sex acts.

"The kind of manipulation that occurred here is really sinister in my estimation," Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel said Wednesday.

Anthony Stancl, of New Berlin, west of Milwaukee, was charged Wednesday with five counts of child enticement, two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child, two counts of third-degree sexual assault, possession of child pornography, repeated sexual assault of the same child and making a bomb threat.

A preliminary hearing for Stancl has been scheduled for Feb. 26. The maximum penalty if convicted on all charges is nearly 300 years in prison.

Officers found about 300 nude images of juvenile males on his computer, according to the complaint. Prosecutors said the victims were as young as 15.

Stancl's attorney, Craig Kuhary, said Stancl plans to plead not guilty to the charges and hopes to reach a plea agreement with the district attorney

"It's too early in the case for me to make a statement, other than the fact at some point we are going to go into events that had taken place earlier that might have had some impact on what he did here," he said.

He wouldn't go into specifics.

The incidents allegedly happened from spring 2007 through November, when officers questioned Stancl about a bomb threat he allegedly sent to teachers and wrote about on a school's bathroom wall. It resulted in the closing of New Berlin Eisenhower Middle and High School, which he attended.

According to the criminal complaint, Stancl first contacted the students through the social networking site Facebook, pretending to be a girl named Kayla or Emily.

The boys reported that they were tricked into sending nude photos or videos of themselves, the complaint said.

Thirty-one victims were identified and interviewed and more than half said the girl with whom they thought they were communicating tried to get them to meet with a male friend to let him perform sex acts on them.

They were told that if they didn't, she would send the nude photos or movies to their friends and post them on the Internet, according to the complaint. Stancl allegedly used the excuse to get the victims to perform repeated acts, the complaint said.

There, article.

Creepy. Very creepy. Didn't something else like this happen before not too long ago?

this is funny.

Idiots.

This only boils down to the fact that there are at least 31 male idiots using facebook.

That kid looks like a creeper. :eek:

I bet people would have cried foul if his ass were beaten to within an inch of his useless life by his victims.

i laughed so hard at this when it was on the news last night

The people sent photographic and video material... to a completely anonymous stranger.

In what way are they victims?

Because they agreed to engage in even greater acts, in exchange for keeping the lesser acts secret? We don't call that 'victim', down our way...

Like there is anybody in my high school that hasn't seen me naked. :tongue:

Haha! That's hilarious. What a prick.

Like there is anybody in my high school that hasn't seen me naked. :tongue:

Was that you strolling through the girls locker room naked after gym today? :eek:

Was that you strolling through the girls locker room naked after gym today? :eek:

How would you know? ;)

How would you know? ;)

I had my web cam hidden in a locker near the showers. :)

The 31 guys obviously forgot about Rule33.

I am surprised that they didn't ask to exchange pics. Now someone mentioned they can't be victim's because they were blackmailed. I would like to know how the fuck they can't really be victims? It would be similar to your wife or girlfriend having a few pics of you naked or whatever and then blackmailing them into doing anything.

The 31 guys obviously forgot about Rule33.

I am surprised that they didn't ask to exchange pics. Now someone mentioned they can't be victim's because they were blackmailed. I would like to know how the fuck they can't really be victims? It would be similar to your wife or girlfriend having a few pics of you naked or whatever and then blackmailing them into doing anything.

I wonder if you're responding to me?

I said they weren't victims because they sent incriminating evidence of themselves to a total stranger.... and why? Just because that person CLAIMED to be female?

That's a justification?

They then compounded something a bit embarassing and arguably stupid... by doing other, MORE embarassing and stupid stuff.


As for the scenario you posit - I'm not going to be blackmailed because someone has naked pictures or video of me - even if such a thing existed. Why? Because I don't give a shit. "Suck this guy's dick or I'll show your naked pictures on the internet"? "Yeah, this is me caring".

We can file this one under "Stupidity is its own Reward"

BTW I agree with Kat, He should have been beaten to within an inch of his life, then had the beating posted on youtube.

I wonder if you're responding to me?

If you are the one who said it then yes.

I said they weren't victims because they sent incriminating evidence of themselves to a total stranger.... and why? Just because that person CLAIMED to be female?

That's a justification?

They then compounded something a bit embarassing and arguably stupid... by doing other, MORE embarassing and stupid stuff.

Yep so being pressured into performing sex acts is perfectly fine with you I see. Can you become a legislator so I can go rape people?

As for the scenario you posit - I'm not going to be blackmailed because someone has naked pictures or video of me - even if such a thing existed. Why? Because I don't give a shit. "Suck this guy's dick or I'll show your naked pictures on the internet"? "Yeah, this is me caring".

OK so you don't give a shit, which means no one else does either. I get ya.

I don't understand why people think this is funny or anything but disgusting. Yes, you can't blackmail people unless they've done something they wouldn't want the whole world see and/or know about...so it's okay to victimize anyone who's ever done anything they wouldn't want the whole world to see and/or know about? How many people are left in the universe that you would actually object to seeing coerced into sex then?

I don't understand why people think this is funny or anything but disgusting. Yes, you can't blackmail people unless they've done something they wouldn't want the whole world see and/or know about...so it's okay to victimize anyone who's ever done anything they wouldn't want the whole world to see and/or know about? How many people are left in the universe that you would actually object to seeing coerced into sex then?

The willful stupidity of others is almost always funny.

If you are the one who said it then yes.


I didn't say what you said... but in only like 2 pages, mine was probably nearest.


Yep so being pressured into performing sex acts is perfectly fine with you I see.


Where did I say anything like that?

I dislike dishonesty, so if you're incapable of overcoming that, feel free to save yourself the effort of responding.

No one forced these 31 guys to get naked, take pictures, and then send them to someone random.

For all they knew - the email address they were given could have been anyone... some old granny, some guy in their class... some innocent kid.


Can you become a legislator so I can go rape people?


I think rape should have harsher penalties, not more lenient.

Again, if you aren't capable of acting like an adult, feel free to unplug your keyboard next time you feel like responding.


OK so you don't give a shit, which means no one else does either. I get ya.

'Giving a shit' isn't a good enough reason to suck someone's cock.

I don't understand why people think this is funny or anything but disgusting. Yes, you can't blackmail people unless they've done something they wouldn't want the whole world see and/or know about...so it's okay to victimize anyone who's ever done anything they wouldn't want the whole world to see and/or know about? How many people are left in the universe that you would actually object to seeing coerced into sex then?

Males being sexually abused or victimized is supposed to be funny. Hee hee.

It's also why so much prison rape goes unreported, unprevented, unnoticed, and is even held up by some people as if it was a legitimate and just aspect of punishment.

Frankly it's disgusting as fuck and stems from an immature, homophobic mindset where if a guy gets sexually abused, it must mean he's weak or gay or otherwise 'deserved it.' And hey ho, ya get people in this very thread acting like the blackmail victims deserved it.

*spit*

I don't understand why people think this is funny or anything but disgusting. Yes, you can't blackmail people unless they've done something they wouldn't want the whole world see and/or know about...so it's okay to victimize anyone who's ever done anything they wouldn't want the whole world to see and/or know about? How many people are left in the universe that you would actually object to seeing coerced into sex then?

I don't think it's funny. I do think that it's evidence that 31 guys are stupid. I think it's evidence that they decided to prove their stupidity... by taking one step FURTHER into stupidity in order to hide the slightly less stupid thing. Which then came out - along with the evidence of their (now) greater stupidity.

I know that they're stupid, but I don't see how it prevents them from being victims, victims of their own stupidity at least.

Frankly it's disgusting as fuck and stems from an immature, homophobic mindset where if a guy gets sexually abused, it must mean he's weak or gay or otherwise 'deserved it.' And hey ho, ya get people in this very thread acting like the blackmail victims deserved it.


If someone asked you to send them material they could blackmail you with, would you send it?

This guy didn't play on secrets he found out. He didn't happen across their crimes and threatend to reveal them. He didn't accidentally catch them at an unguarded moment, while they were engrossed in some deep sin.

He asked them to send him blackmail-able material.

And they did.

Yes, I have a lot less sympathy for these people than I would have in other circumstances.

But sex is all about circumstances. After all 'circumstances' is what makes sex different to rape.

He asked them to send him blackmail-able material.


Not quite, he manipulated them into doing it. There is a difference. But yeah, they're still stupid.

Not quite, he manipulated them into doing it. There is a difference. But yeah, they're still stupid.

If, by 'manipulated', you mean 'asked' (apparently) I agree.

So he pretended to be a girl... but 'she' just asked.

If, by 'manipulated', you mean 'asked' (apparently) I agree.

So he pretended to be a girl... but 'she' just asked.

The act of lying, and claiming to be some horny girl or whatever, is manipulation.

If someone asked you to send them material they could blackmail you with, would you send it?

Sadly, I already have. Of course I didn't get blackmailed with it, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.e

This guy didn't play on secrets he found out. He didn't happen across their crimes and threatend to reveal them. He didn't accidentally catch them at an unguarded moment, while they were engrossed in some deep sin.

He asked them to send him blackmail-able material.

And they did.

Um, the article said he tricked them into sending pictures and such by posing as someone he wasn't. You're making it sound like he just said, "I'm going to blackmail you, give me something I can use" but I see nothing to support that.

I didn't say what you said... but in only like 2 pages, mine was probably nearest.

Where did I say anything like that?

I dislike dishonesty, so if you're incapable of overcoming that, feel free to save yourself the effort of responding.

No one forced these 31 guys to get naked, take pictures, and then send them to someone random.

For all they knew - the email address they were given could have been anyone... some old granny, some guy in their class... some innocent kid.

Ok, so you don't think they are victims of coercion or even to perform sexual acts against their will (sometimes referred to as rape). And you are correct no one did force them to take pics of them selves, but they were forced to perform sexual acts otherwise their pics would be released into the public. Now I'm not to sure but is blackmail illegal in the US? Is having child porn on your computers illegal?

I think rape should have harsher penalties, not more lenient.

Again, if you aren't capable of acting like an adult, feel free to unplug your keyboard next time you feel like responding.

But if people are coerced into performing sexual acts then it doesn't matter and those people aren't victim's

'Giving a shit' isn't eca good enough reason to suck someones cock.

As I say just because you wouldn't care if people threatened to show perhaps your embarrassment doesn't mean no one else would.

If someone asked you to send them material they could blackmail you with, would you send it?

I have done so before. There are certainly people capable of blackmailing me, if they wanted to. For example, my mother is a bit insane, and would probably disown me if she discovered that I HAD a sex-life, let alone discovering anything of the nature of it. Am I therefore a moron for continuing to have a sex-life, thus giving my partners the ability to get me disowned? For that matter, my friends tend to be aware that I have a sex-life. They could blackmail me, too. Perhaps I should cease to have friends, such that I would no longer be at risk?

You can argue that the victims shouldn't have sent these pictures to someone who wasn't trustworthy - but how on earth can we assume that that untrustworthiness was obvious? Shall we consider people morons for daring to trust anyone, ever?

The terminally stupid get duped, make prize fools of themselves, and this is supposed to elicit sympathy?

Frankly, if your best chance for sexual fulfilment is through facebook, I'd give up.

Frankly, if your best chance for sexual fulfilment is through facebook, I'd give up.

:( It was my only hope!

:( It was my only hope!

I doubt it.

The terminally stupid get duped, make prize fools of themselves, and this is supposed to elicit sympathy?


You remind me so much of a radio presenter. He's on very early in the morning on LBC.

Frankly, if your best chance for sexual fulfilment is through facebook, I'd give up.

May not be the best or only chance but it is another way to get it, and can be rewarding.

Further proof human beings love to laugh at the humiliation and tragedy of others until it somehow hits close to home.

It's also one of the reasons I will never subscribe to these sorts of sites. Either you're a sucker waiting to be exploited, or you're an asshole waiting to exploit others.

I don't think it's funny. I do think that it's evidence that 31 guys are stupid. I think it's evidence that they decided to prove their stupidity... by taking one step FURTHER into stupidity in order to hide the slightly less stupid thing. Which then came out - along with the evidence of their (now) greater stupidity.

They were high school students. Many were minors--at least one was as young as 15. If this was a 40 year old guy coercing 15 year old girls to send him naked pictures, no one would think it was "funny", they would think it was seriously sick, which it is.

Further proof human beings love to laugh at the humiliation and tragedy of others until it somehow hits close to home.

It's also one of the reasons I will never subscribe to these sorts of sites. Either you're a sucker waiting to be exploited, or you're an asshole waiting to exploit others.

Yep. That's the entirety of Facebook. No one uses it without ruining someone else's life or their own. :rolleyes:

Further proof human beings love to laugh at the humiliation and tragedy of others until it somehow hits close to home.

In my defense, I usually laugh then too.

In my defense, I usually laugh then too.

But that's usually because you are the one causing the mischief LG. :)

But that's usually because you are the one causing the mischief LG. :)

Or I had it coming to me. :tongue:

Yep. That's the entirety of Facebook. No one uses it without ruining someone else's life or their own. :rolleyes:

Which of course means all those parents who are being told to warn their kids about posting personal information on the Internet are just being silly.

:rolleyes:

The people sent photographic and video material... to a completely anonymous stranger.

In what way are they victims?

Because they agreed to engage in even greater acts, in exchange for keeping the lesser acts secret? We don't call that 'victim', down our way...

Oooooh damn, some resounding logic right there.

I'm going to have to agree with you.

Disgusting what he did, and good he's been caught, but I'm puzzled by the word "child" in all the charges. Unless his classmates were younger than him, I can only say that 18 year olds aren't children.

Also, I have a feeling that that he'd have had a hard time blackmailing these people if the photos in question weren't "child pornography." Thus probably putting the senders at risk of jail and a life on the vigillantism incitement registry.

I have to say that I actually don't mind the thought of a life sentence, though. Sex offenders are often repeat offenders, and he basically coerced sex, which isn't that far from forcibly raping someone, and is regardless a disgusting and evil act. I don't feel such people should get parol.

I have done so before. There are certainly people capable of blackmailing me, if they wanted to. For example, my mother is a bit insane, and would probably disown me if she discovered that I HAD a sex-life, let alone discovering anything of the nature of it. Am I therefore a moron for continuing to have a sex-life, thus giving my partners the ability to get me disowned? For that matter, my friends tend to be aware that I have a sex-life. They could blackmail me, too. Perhaps I should cease to have friends, such that I would no longer be at risk?

You can argue that the victims shouldn't have sent these pictures to someone who wasn't trustworthy - but how on earth can we assume that that untrustworthiness was obvious? Shall we consider people morons for daring to trust anyone, ever?

Okay. I'm a girl. Send me naked pictures, plz.

They were high school students. Many were minors--at least one was as young as 15. If this was a 40 year old guy coercing 15 year old girls to send him naked pictures, no one would think it was "funny", they would think it was seriously sick, which it is.

I think I agreed it wasn't funny.

I'm a little confused by this guys 'classmates' being spread over a three year age range (apparently)... the specifics of who did what seem a little cloudy.

Okay. I'm a girl. Send me naked pictures, plz.

No. I'm not suggesting one not have standards. Also, you know, I'm not into chicks. :P

Seriously, though, the story doesn't say that what you just did was what this ass did. How do we know he didn't have lengthy conversations with his victims over the course of months before he ever asked for pictures? If what you said is exactly what he said, then yes, the victims are idiots. They're still victims, and what this guy did is still utterly not okay.

No. I'm not suggesting one not have standards. Also, you know, I'm not into chicks. :P


It's kind of the thought process there I'm interested in. What clicks through your brain under those kinds of circumstances. It's not like you START from a default position of 'oh, someone asked, better nakey-up and roll out the webcam'... even if I'd claimed to be Stephen Colbert instead of just some random chick.


Seriously, though, the story doesn't say that what you just did was what this ass did. How do we know he didn't have lengthy conversations with his victims over the course of months before he ever asked for pictures? If what you said is exactly what he said, then yes, the victims are idiots. They're still victims, and what this guy did is still utterly not okay.

You're right, we really don't know what occured. They may have known each other for months, and the accused could be the most convincing actor ever... but I'm still not seeing the point at which some person you've never seen - one assumes never actually talked to, because that ought to kill the illusin, right there - suddenly becomes a candidate for mailing freeze-frames of your junk, to.

Sure, what he did wasn't okay, I agree.

It's not so much as this is funny, so much as we're saying that these "kids" can't be called 100% victims, and they don't deserve a whole lot of sympathy, and they're not fully "innocent" themselves.

Why?

Because they willingly sent photos of themselves to an anonymous person online. I don't care who the other party says they are, or how "horny" they are, or anything of the such. Anything you put up on the internet, even a "secure" exchange with a friend, can end up everywhere on the internet. It's just something you don't do. And to display such a lack of common sense, and indeed stupidity sets them up for this.

Secondly, when they were finally blackmailed for this, instead of going to the police, who have every capability of tracking down where this was coming from ((due to their connections with facebook)), they fell for this blackmailing. An additional signal of a lack of common sense and general stupidity.

Sure, it's sad this happened, and this guy's a creep and should be locked up for all 300 years of that sentence. But let's not have this view of poor little high-school children. If you ask me, they should be forced to take an internet safety course.

No. I'm not suggesting one not have standards. Also, you know, I'm not into chicks. :P

Ok I am a guy so you can send them to me!

Wait how old are you?

Ok I am a guy so you can send them to me!

Wait how old are you?

Old enough to know better than those poor dumb kids.

I bet $5 the guy says he's not gay.

I'm not going to be blackmailed because someone has naked pictures or video of me - even if such a thing existed. Why? Because I don't give a shit. "Suck this guy's dick or I'll show your naked pictures on the internet"? "Yeah, this is me caring".

I completely agree...there are no naked photos of me on the internet, but if there were, you could post them anywhere you please, I really don't care...

...hell, it might garner me some attention. :D

I think I agreed it wasn't funny.

I'm a little confused by this guys 'classmates' being spread over a three year age range (apparently)... the specifics of who did what seem a little cloudy.

Prosecutors said the victims were as young as 15.

From the article, it sounds like he's an 18-year-old high school student who blackmailed other students. Generally high schools have at least three, often four grades. So the age range isn't really surprising.

It's not so much as this is funny, so much as we're saying that these "kids" can't be called 100% victims, and they don't deserve a whole lot of sympathy, and they're not fully "innocent" themselves.

Why?

Because they willingly sent photos of themselves to an anonymous person online. I don't care who the other party says they are, or how "horny" they are, or anything of the such. Anything you put up on the internet, even a "secure" exchange with a friend, can end up everywhere on the internet. It's just something you don't do. And to display such a lack of common sense, and indeed stupidity sets them up for this.

Secondly, when they were finally blackmailed for this, instead of going to the police, who have every capability of tracking down where this was coming from ((due to their connections with facebook)), they fell for this blackmailing. An additional signal of a lack of common sense and general stupidity.

Sure, it's sad this happened, and this guy's a creep and should be locked up for all 300 years of that sentence. But let's not have this view of poor little high-school children. If you ask me, they should be forced to take an internet safety course.

Yes, it was very naive and stupid of the boys. Does that mean they got what they deserved? I don't think so. The ones who were 18, I don't have much of a problem with: they made a mistake, but they made the mistake as adults. The 17, 16 and even 15 year old victims, however, are legally minors. We have an age of consent and child pornography laws because we recognize that many children are not cognitively developed enough to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I really feel like the reaction to this would be less derisive if the guy had blackmailed juvenile girls. If someone's 15-year-old daughter had made a dumb decision and sent naked pictures to this guy, and then, in a panic at the thought of her life being torn apart by exposure, made the further dumb decision to give in to his demands, I think we'd all have a little more sympathy. But for some reason, a boy of the same age and in the same position is supposed to be... what? More mature? Less gullible?

Yes, it was very naive and stupid of the boys. Does that mean they got what they deserved? I don't think so. The ones who were 18, I don't have much of a problem with: they made a mistake, but they made the mistake as adults. The 17, 16 and even 15 year old victims, however, are legally minors. We have an age of consent and child pornography laws because we recognize that many children are not cognitively developed enough to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions.

I'm not saying that these laws should be circumvented. I said it in my post, prosecute to your heart's content! But you can't sit there and tell me that kids, even as young as 15, don't have some cognitive ability and that they didn't shouldn't have had warning bells going off that would've warned them.

Even at 15, I knew that this sort of stuff could only end in misery. Hell, if I had made the first slip up of sending stuff, I'd at least have had the sense to go to my dad. Cause the butt-whooping for stupidity I'd have gotten would've been far easier than caving to blackmail.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I really feel like the reaction to this would be less derisive if the guy had blackmailed juvenile girls. If someone's 15-year-old daughter had made a dumb decision and sent naked pictures to this guy, and then, in a panic at the thought of her life being torn apart by exposure, made the further dumb decision to give in to his demands, I think we'd all have a little more sympathy. But for some reason, a boy of the same age and in the same position is supposed to be... what? More mature? Less gullible?

I think you are wrong on this account. I'm in college, and I see all the drunken photos of guys and girls online, and I am amazed at the lack of common sense by both sexes. If it'd had been a 15 year old girl who did this, I'd still be saying that she was stupid for going through with all of this. Just as much as I am now about these guys.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,488428,00.html

Oh, no. Don't post naked pictures of me. Here, let me suck you off.
The little head telling the big head what to do,when the big head should know better :)

Disgusting what he did, and good he's been caught, but I'm puzzled by the word "child" in all the charges. Unless his classmates were younger than him, I can only say that 18 year olds aren't children.

Also, I have a feeling that that he'd have had a hard time blackmailing these people if the photos in question weren't "child pornography." Thus probably putting the senders at risk of jail and a life on the vigillantism incitement registry.

I have to say that I actually don't mind the thought of a life sentence, though. Sex offenders are often repeat offenders, and he basically coerced sex, which isn't that far from forcibly raping someone, and is regardless a disgusting and evil act. I don't feel such people should get parol.

Some were as young as 15, so yes some of these pics are child porn, as for having a hard time not blackmailing them, well they are young and may not know everything that they can do esepecially if this guy was able to convince them that what he would do would wreck their lives and telling anyuone about them would expose them as gay or something, which still is a real fear amongst many people around the world, maybe even more so in the US.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I really feel like the reaction to this would be less derisive if the guy had blackmailed juvenile girls. If someone's 15-year-old daughter had made a dumb decision and sent naked pictures to this guy, and then, in a panic at the thought of her life being torn apart by exposure, made the further dumb decision to give in to his demands, I think we'd all have a little more sympathy. But for some reason, a boy of the same age and in the same position is supposed to be... what? More mature? Less gullible?

^^ This, of course many more people would be screaming rape if it was girls instead of boys. Why? Because boys are men and they are not susceptible to these sort of acts hell they probably wanted it and loved to suck cock. It is the exact same reason that when a female teacher has sex with a 15 year old teacher people pat the boy on the back and the teacher is not labeled as much as a monster switch roles however and people are asking for the teacher to be killed.

he's gonna like jail.:tongue:

How is this remotely funny?

Edit: And the victim-blaming is really disgusting. It's like telling a rape victim, "Oh, you shouldn't have accepted drinks from other people."

This only boils down to the fact that there are at least 31 male idiots using facebook.

Since the Stancl guy managed to get caught, I'd say 32.

I said they weren't victims because they sent incriminating evidence of themselves to a total stranger....

So what?

Stupid? Yes. But people do stupid things all the time. That doesn't mean they aren't victims when other people intentionally exploit their mistakes for abusive purposes.

Males being sexually abused or victimized is supposed to be funny. Hee hee.

It's also why so much prison rape goes unreported, unprevented, unnoticed, and is even held up by some people as if it was a legitimate and just aspect of punishment.

Frankly it's disgusting as fuck and stems from an immature, homophobic mindset where if a guy gets sexually abused, it must mean he's weak or gay or otherwise 'deserved it.' And hey ho, ya get people in this very thread acting like the blackmail victims deserved it.

*spit*

Quoted for fucking truth.

If I was blackmailing someone the last thing I would do is ask to stick my bits in their mouths - they are bearing a grude and have teeth - a nasty combination

Since the Stancl guy managed to get caught, I'd say 32.

I stand corrected :p

How is this remotely funny?

the guy deserves all the time he gets, but come on
"i'll mildly embarrass you unless you engage in much more exploitable acts with me"
"well, when you put it like that, i don't see how i have a choice"

From the article, it sounds like he's an 18-year-old high school student who blackmailed other students. Generally high schools have at least three, often four grades. So the age range isn't really surprising.


It's probably the way they've specifically called them 'classmates' that makes it seem confusing. Between the ages of say 15 and 18, I don't think we had any classes that were shared between 3 years of students.


Tell me if I'm wrong, but I really feel like the reaction to this would be less derisive if the guy had blackmailed juvenile girls.


My reaction would be the same, I can't speak for anyone else. You don't send naked pictires to random people just because they claim to be a gender you prefer. Even if you're way horny, you should probably be looking for a partner using a slightly more discriminating agenda than 'right number of holes'.

^^ This, of course many more people would be screaming rape if it was girls instead of boys. Why? Because boys are men and they are not susceptible to these sort of acts hell they probably wanted it and loved to suck cock. It is the exact same reason that when a female teacher has sex with a 15 year old teacher people pat the boy on the back and the teacher is not labeled as much as a monster switch roles however and people are asking for the teacher to be killed.

People keep claiming it's a double standard, but the only double standard I'm seeing applied here is by you. You're coming up with a raft of excuses for why other people might find it alright - but not one of those 'excuses' is turning up anywhere among those who you are disagreeing with.

How is this remotely funny?

Edit: And the victim-blaming is really disgusting. It's like telling a rape victim, "Oh, you shouldn't have accepted drinks from other people."

No - it's not like that.

If this guy had found some way to intoxicate these other kids, and then capitalised on it, maybe I'd see it differently.

If we're going to set this in a parallel situation, it would be like a guy walking up to a girl in a bar and - not offering to buy her a drink - but asking her to give him naked photos... and then saying "now you gave me naked photos, you have to suck that guy's dick".

This only boils down to the fact that there are at least 31 male idiots using facebook.

You'd think everyone would know that already.

The 31 guys obviously forgot about Rule33.

I am surprised that they didn't ask to exchange pics. Now someone mentioned they can't be victim's because they were blackmailed. I would like to know how the fuck they can't really be victims? It would be similar to your wife or girlfriend having a few pics of you naked or whatever and then blackmailing them into doing anything.

They might have. Because it would be easy as shit to save and upload several picks from one girl's porn site and pass those off as yourself.

How is this remotely funny?

Edit: And the victim-blaming is really disgusting. It's like telling a rape victim, "Oh, you shouldn't have accepted drinks from other people."

There's a difference. Rape victims don't have a choice in the matter. These guys did, and chose to be blackmailed over something so trivial as having someone post naked pictures that they had proven they were willing to share.

There's a difference. Rape victims don't have a choice in the matter. These guys did, and chose to be blackmailed

They didn't "choose to be blackmailed." Shit, you people really ARE saying they were asking for it. Blackmail is coercion, and if you don't think coercing someone into performing sexual acts is wrong, then I suggest you do a fucking double-think my friend.

over something so trivial as having someone post naked pictures that they had proven they were willing to share.

They were willing to share with one person, not the entire world. They did not know they were going to be blackmailed. They did not choose to be blackmailed.

Furthermore, as many of these victims were minors they had no legal right to consent to sex ANYWAY, so any sex acts performed even WITHOUT coercion and rape was a criminal act.

I can't fucking believe the shit arguments you people are pulling out of your collective asses.

How is this remotely funny?
I find it funny because those kids sent nekkid pics of themselves and are forced to do sex acts to avoid those pics from being posted elsewhere.

kinda like a person who leaves his laptop, credit card bills and wallet in their car, with the doors unlocked and the key in the ignition and is surprised that their car and identity are stolen.

EDIT: this is NO way blaming the victim. after all, the blackmailer still chose to do what he did.

They didn't "choose to be blackmailed." Shit, you people really ARE saying they were asking for it. Blackmail is coercion, and if you don't think coercing someone into performing sexual acts is wrong, then I suggest you do a fucking double-think my friend.

They were willing to share with one person, not the entire world. They did not know they were going to be blackmailed. They did not choose to be blackmailed.


I'm a girl. Send me naked pics, plz.

I'm a girl. Send me naked pics, plz.

We have absolutely no data on how he tricked his victims into sending naked pictures, so your facile attempt at painting it as patently obvious and absurd is just your blind shot in the dark attempt at justifying your blaming the victim.

We have absolutely no data on how he tricked his victims into sending naked pictures, so your facile attempt at painting it as patently obvious and absurd is just your blind shot in the dark attempt at justifying your blaming the victim.

What a lot of rationalisation for the immediate 'no' response that came to mind.

I notice you haven't sent me the pictures yet. Why?

We have absolutely no data on how he tricked his victims into sending naked pictures

I'm just gonna hazard a wild guess and say, he asked for them.

Here's the response to a random, unknown request via a social networking site on the internet for naked pictures:

No.

What a lot of rationalisation for the immediate 'no' response that came to mind.

I notice you haven't sent me the pictures yet. Why?

Gee, maybe because the situation is COMPLETELY FUCKING DIFFERENT?

The article says he tricked the victims into sending it. You haven't tricked me.

The victims were minors. I'm 28.

Also, you haven't tricked me at all.

But yeah let's pretend the situation is exactly the same.

I'm just gonna hazard a wild guess and say, he asked for them.

How about I guess that he tricked them by pretending to be a girl and feigning a personal interest in private communications over the course of days, weeks or months.

Here's the response to a random, unknown request via a social networking site on the internet for naked pictures:

No.

Congratulations! You don't deserve to be sexually assaulted, either!

Gee, maybe because the situation is COMPLETELY FUCKING DIFFERENT?


How? Because NSG isn't a social networking site?


The article says he tricked the victims into sending it. You haven't tricked me.


Exactly. Why?


The victims were minors. I'm 28.


Ah - so it's all because you're older and wiser?


Also, you haven't tricked me at all.


Which isn't an explanation. Why haven't I tricked you?


But yeah let's pretend the situation is exactly the same.


You haven't shown they're different, except that you're older.

Exactly. Why?


What the fuck? Does he seem tricked to you?

What the fuck? Does he seem tricked to you?

Ah, I know this one. It's a variant on English that requires an expletive followed by a rhetorical question, and relies on all the meaning being relayed by invisible radiation.

Right?

How? Because NSG isn't a social networking site?



Exactly. Why?


This is getting ridiculous. You are asking me why you didn't trick me? Really?


Ah - so it's all because you're older and wiser?

Yes, children are easier to trick and take advantage of. This is one reason why the age of consent laws exist.

Which isn't an explanation. Why haven't I tricked you?

The same reason your argument is failing so miserably.

You haven't shown they're different, except that you're older.

I shouldn't have to, because I shouldn't be arguing with someone who thinks being deliberately obtuse is a valid tactic.

You have nothing to support your actual argument, so now you're saying dipshit things like "Gee, what makes having sex with minors wrong? I mean, other than the fact that they're younger!"

That one fact alone is more than sufficient.

Ah, I know this one. It's a variant on English that requires an expletive followed by a rhetorical question, and relies on all the meaning being relayed by invisible radiation.

Right?

It's your avatar. If you are a woman, and you're using that avatar, you're probably going to kill him in his sleep. Hence, this is why he won't send naked pictures.

It's your avatar. If you are a woman, and you're using that avatar, you're probably going to kill him in his sleep. Hence, this is why he won't send naked pictures.

This is actually the best explanation that has been offered so far.

Like there is anybody in my high school that hasn't seen me naked. :tongue:

Like there isn't anyone on Facebook who hasn't seen the same thing.

This is getting ridiculous. You are asking me why you didn't trick me? Really?


Yes.

It's an old rhetorical device we use down our way. When you want to know an answer to a question, you ask that question, and can sometimes 'trick' people into giving away such things as the answer.

It's elaborate and cunning, but I thought it worth a shot.


The same reason your argument is failing so miserably.


The reason my 'argument' is 'failing' is that you seem to think not answering questions is a valid tactic.


I shouldn't have to, because I shouldn't be arguing with someone who thinks being deliberately obtuse is a valid tactic.


Oh, the irony.


You have nothing to support your actual argument, so now you're saying dipshit things like "Gee, what makes having sex with minors wrong? I mean, other than the fact that they're younger!"


I don't believe that's actually anything I said.


That one fact alone is more than sufficient.

Yes. The fact that you have invented something you (apparently) wish I'd said, is 'sufficient' reason for you to not have to defend your position.


Let me phrase it a different way: What would I have to do, to 'trick' you into sending me naked pictures?

Like there isn't anyone... who hasn't seen the same thing.

Fixed.

If this guy had found some way to intoxicate these other kids, and then capitalised on it, maybe I'd see it differently.

I'm not sure why intoxication is relevantly different from blackmail... both are ways to get people to do things against their will, which is to victimize and abuse them.

There's a difference. Rape victims don't have a choice in the matter.

All kinds of coercion can give the victim a "choice" of sorts: if a robber points a gun at you asking for your money, you can always choose to be shot.

These guys did, and chose to be blackmailed over something so trivial as having someone post naked pictures that they had proven they were willing to share.

Trivial to you. Clearly not to them. And it was not incidentally coercive, but deliberately so on the part of their abuser--that's the point of blackmail.

kinda like a person who leaves his laptop, credit card bills and wallet in their car, with the doors unlocked and the key in the ignition and is surprised that their car and identity are stolen.

I don't find that funny, either. And theft is a ways away from rape.

Yes.

It's an old rhetorical device we use down our way. When you want to know an answer to a question, you ask that question, and can sometimes 'trick' people into giving away such things as the answer.

It's elaborate and cunning, but I thought it worth a shot.

Trick me into giving you a magically valid analogy? Sorry, it seems to have backfired.

The reason my 'argument' is 'failing' is that you seem to think not answering questions is a valid tactic.

No, your argument is failing because you continue to assume things about this case that are not true. For example, you assumed the kids being blackmailed were informed that they were going to be blackmailed beforehand. Then when you couldn't support this (with, you know, facts) you assumed that they were simply asked, "send me pics. I'm a girl." Again, this is unsupported by anything, the article only says he tricked them, it doesn't say he did it in an absurd manner.

Then you assumed that the situation is similar enough that you could, right now, say "send me pics, I'm a girl." Sorry, it isn't. The mere fact that unlike the victims, I am an adult, already trashes this analogy and this assumption.

Now you're only falling back on going "So what other relevant differences are there?" as if only having one relevant difference is enough to make it still a valid analogy. Tough shit, one's enough. But you want more? Fine, I'll explain the obvious. Hold my hand, it's a tough one.

* I am not a minor. The victims were.
* This is not Facebook, it's Nationstates. The purposes of these two sites are patently different.
* I know you are lying. The victims did not.
* We are actually arguing about the subject of using pictures sent by fraudulent sex predators online as blackmail and means of coercion. The victims were not.
* You are not convincing. The culprit was.
* You are not actually trying. The culprit was.
* The culprit was able to persuade other people online. So far, you haven't.


Oh, the irony.

I'm not being obtuse, either deliberately or accidentally.


I don't believe that's actually anything I said.


That's why it was a comparison to something equally retarded, as indicated by the use of the word "like."

Yes. The fact that you have invented something you (apparently) wish I'd said, is 'sufficient' reason for you to not have to defend your position.


Let me phrase it a different way: What would I have to do, to 'trick' you into sending me naked pictures?

First, you'd have to magically transform me into someone too young and experienced to know better.

Then you'd have to magically transform yourself into someone able to persuade me through the internet.

Ah, I know this one. It's a variant on English that requires an expletive followed by a rhetorical question, and relies on all the meaning being relayed by invisible radiation.

Right?

The 'meaning' should come from yourself. You already why he wasn't tricked, I don't need to tell you or show you that.

Trick me into giving you a magically valid analogy? Sorry, it seems to have backfired.


No, 'trick' you into giving an answer, which you apparently feel is somehow to be avoided.

Well, thus far, anyway - let's see if you improve.


No, your argument is failing because you continue to assume things about this case that are not true. For example, you assumed the kids being blackmailed were informed that they were going to be blackmailed beforehand.


I assumed nothing of the sort.

Seriously, if your whole argument is going to consist of making up what you think I should have said, it's not looking good.


Then when you couldn't support this (with, you know, facts) you assumed that they were simply asked, "send me pics. I'm a girl." Again, this is unsupported by anything, the article only says he tricked them, it doesn't say he did it in an absurd manner.


What the article says:

"An 18-year-old U.S. student is accused of posing as a girl on Facebook, tricking at least 31 male classmates into sending him naked photos of themselves... According to the criminal complaint, Stancl first contacted the students through the social networking site Facebook, pretending to be a girl named Kayla or Emily. The boys reported that they were tricked into sending nude photos or videos of themselves, the complaint said."

The only thing that the source links to the 'tricking' - is 'posing as a girl'. It's possible there was more to it - which is why I'm asking YOU what YOU think would be necessary to convince someone to send naked pictures to someone they'd never met, or even talked to.


Then you assumed that the situation is similar enough that you could, right now, say "send me pics, I'm a girl." Sorry, it isn't. The mere fact that unlike the victims, I am an adult, already trashes this analogy and this assumption.


No - I'm not assuming that, at all. I'm assuming that you can actually respond to the questions I pose.

So far, the BEST you've offered - is that you're older.


Now you're only falling back on going "So what other relevant differences are there?" as if only having one relevant difference is enough to make it still a valid analogy. Tough shit, one's enough. But you want more? Fine, I'll explain the obvious. Hold my hand, it's a tough one.

* I am not a minor. The victims were.


Not all of the 'victims', according to the article - so why did those who were NOT minors walk into it?


* This is not Facebook, it's Nationstates. The purposes of these two sites are patently different.


Why? What is the 'purpose' of Facebook? It's social networking, right?


* I know you are lying. The victims did not.


You don't know I'm lying - you just assume it.

You've never met me, you've never heard my voice. You may have seen pictures on this site, which MAY have actually been pictures of me.

You really don't KNOW if I'm a boy or a girl.


* We are actually arguing about the subject of using pictures sent by fraudulent sex predators online as blackmail and means of coercion. The victims were not.


Which is irrelevent.


* You are not convincing. The culprit was.


You know nothing. The culprit could have phrased his request EXACTLY how I just did.


* You are not actually trying. The culprit was.


Which is irrelevent.


* The culprit was able to persuade other people online. So far, you haven't.


Which is what I'm getting at...


I'm not being obtuse, either deliberately or accidentally.


You're not being obtuse deliberately, you claim.


That's why it was a comparison to something equally retarded, as indicated by the use of the word "like."


Your best effort is to dismiss anything I've ACTUALLY said as 'dipshit' or 'retarded', and make up a question that parallels it. An honest approach would have been to forego both those options, and actually answered the questions I asked.


First, you'd have to magically transform me into someone too young and experienced to know better.

Then you'd have to magically transform yourself into someone able to persuade me through the internet.

Both of which are actual evasions. What would I have to write?

Give me a paragraph which - in the SAME circumstances - would have worked?

The 'meaning' should come from yourself. You already why he wasn't tricked, I don't need to tell you or show you that.

Ah, the 'I don't have to tell you" defence.

I'm almost disappointed to not see the expected "...and your mom dresses you funny" finale.

Trostia has carefully avoided actually responding to the question, and you are similarly evasive.

Ah, the 'I don't have to tell you" defence.


I'm not trying to defend an argument, because I haven't made one. A rhetorical question is used to so you work it out for yourself. Unfortunately, it seems to have failed on you.

Yep. That's the entirety of Facebook. No one uses it without ruining someone else's life or their own. :rolleyes:

That about sums it up...in fact, there should be a law banning using your own info on any websites...also, people should be encouraged to give fake names/information when signing up for things in real life. this way, everyone is protected...

if you want to put personal info online, use Myspace...its a LOT safer ;)

And why don't you just state what you're getting at.

I'm not trying to defend an argument, because I haven't made one.


Ah, self-identified trolling. Nice.


A rhetorical question is used to so you work it out for yourself.


The whole point of asking the question, was so that I could see what answers the other posters came up with, rather than just using the answers I could 'work out' for myself.

That's not an uncommon tactic in debate, you know?


Unfortunately, it seems to have failed on you.

Yes. Being evasive 'failed'.

Ah, self-identified trolling. Nice.


What... the fuck? Seriously, why do you always apply the most extreme label you possibly can to anything, even when the label is extremely tenuously linked.


The whole point of asking the question, was so that I could see what answers the other posters came up with

And then be pedantic and apply reductio ad absurdum bullshit to it.

What... the fuck? Seriously, why do you always apply the most extreme label you possibly can to anything, even when the label is extremely tenuously linked.


The whole point of the question I asked, was to find out what Trostia believed was the explanation for why he (he, right?) hadn't been tricked.

Your effusive "What the fuck? Does he seem tricked to you?" not only failed to answer the question (that I'd asked someone else), but seemed designed to be inflammatory.

Following it with the 'neener neener' type response ("The 'meaning' should come from yourself. You already why he wasn't tricked, I don't need to tell you or show you that") suggests that you were fishing for a response. You've admitted you don't HAVE an argument - so it's PURE fishing for response...

Thus - trolling.


And then be pedantic and apply reductio ad absurdum bullshit to it.

Unless the question actually gets answered, we'll never know, will we?

suggests that you were fishing for a response.

That's nice, wrong though.


Unless the question actually gets answered, we'll never know, will we?

Ask me the question then.

I assumed nothing of the sort.

Seriously, if your whole argument is going to consist of making up what you think I should have said, it's not looking good.


Yes, you did. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14483228&postcount=27)


This guy didn't play on secrets he found out. He didn't happen across their crimes and threatend to reveal them. He didn't accidentally catch them at an unguarded moment, while they were engrossed in some deep sin.

He asked them to send him blackmail-able material.

And they did.


So your accusation that I'm making anything up is false.

What the article says:

"An 18-year-old U.S. student is accused of posing as a girl on Facebook, tricking at least 31 male classmates into sending him naked photos of themselves... According to the criminal complaint, Stancl first contacted the students through the social networking site Facebook, pretending to be a girl named Kayla or Emily. The boys reported that they were tricked into sending nude photos or videos of themselves, the complaint said."

The only thing that the source links to the 'tricking' - is 'posing as a girl'. It's possible there was more to it - which is why I'm asking YOU what YOU think would be necessary to convince someone to send naked pictures to someone they'd never met, or even talked to.

That's not what you were asking.

No - I'm not assuming that, at all. I'm assuming that you can actually respond to the questions I pose.

So far, the BEST you've offered - is that you're older.

Yes, that is exactly what you assumed, and are still assuming by continuing the analogy.

Not all of the 'victims', according to the article - so why did those who were NOT minors walk into it?

Your answer is "they're stupid," which is wrong, offensive and frankly stupid.

Why? What is the 'purpose' of Facebook? It's social networking, right?

Is that the purpose of Nationstates now too?

You don't know I'm lying - you just assume it.

Yes, I know you're not actually asking for my pictures from any sort of want of your own, because I know you were saying it as part of this argument.

You've never met me, you've never heard my voice. You may have seen pictures on this site, which MAY have actually been pictures of me.

You really don't KNOW if I'm a boy or a girl.

I know you're full of shit by the way you're arguing.

Which is irrelevent.


It's completely relevant.

You know nothing. The culprit could have phrased his request EXACTLY how I just did.

Your mistake then in assuming he did.

Which is irrelevent.

No, actually making a genuine attempt will have a different outcome than not trying at all except as part of some half-assed trolling argument. It's relevant.

Which is what I'm getting at...

Hardly. You're getting at that I'm not stupid, while these kids are stupid, and that that's the only 'relevant' difference.

Sorry. Your argument is stupid.


Your best effort is to dismiss anything I've ACTUALLY said as 'dipshit' or 'retarded', and make up a question that parallels it. An honest approach would have been to forego both those options, and actually answered the questions I asked.

More accusations of dishonesty. Sorry, they didn't fly before and still aren't flying.


Both of which are actual evasions. What would I have to write?

Give me a paragraph which - in the SAME circumstances - would have worked?

I don't know, because I'm not in that circumstance, am I? Because this isn't that circumstance either, is it? Because you're not a sex predator, are you? Because I'm not a teenager, am I?

Guess that's not "relevant" and I'm "evading" again, right? Yeah because if you actually had to address it, you might actually realize you're just blaming the rape victims like a complete ass.

They were willing to share with one person, not the entire world. They did not know they were going to be blackmailed. They did not choose to be blackmailed.

I do not care who you are, you do not put such material on the internet thinking it'll actually stay with only one person. If you put it on the internet, you had better assume it may get out to the entire world.

Furthermore, as many of these victims were minors they had no legal right to consent to sex ANYWAY, so any sex acts performed even WITHOUT coercion and rape was a criminal act.

Not one person has denied this. But being a minor does not excuse stupidity. I guarantee that had I been one of these kids, my dad'd be kicking my ass for my stupidity. And I hope their parents are doing just that.

I do not care who you are, you do not put such material on the internet thinking it'll actually stay with only one person. If you put it on the internet, you had better assume it may get out to the entire world.

Ooh, sage advice...

Not one person has denied this. But being a minor does not excuse stupidity.

But not taking (or having never heard of) your advice does not make one "stupid."

Your total lack of empathy with the victims is pretty shameful.

I guarantee that had I been one of these kids, my dad'd be kicking my ass for my stupidity. And I hope their parents are doing just that.

Oh that's what we need - KICK THE ASS of SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS! Brilliant! Those kids need to learn a lesson!

Any more brilliant arguments from the "BLAME THE VICTIM" crowd?

Ahahahaha plebs :D

I feel quite bad for finding it immensely funny up until the psychotic blackmailing bit :$

The potential for the humorous part seems limitless...

*archetypal school bully voice* "Gimme your lunch money NOW!!!"

*freaky blackmailer* "Well, ok, but if I do, don't be surprised if that picture of you with the cucumber in a compromising position appears on posters around the neighbourhood..."

:tongue:

So your accusation that I'm making anything up is false.


No, you entirely made it up.

As you point out, I said: "He asked them to send him blackmail-able material."

Which is true.

You said I assumed: "the kids being blackmailed were informed that they were going to be blackmailed beforehand"

Which I didn't.

The problem appears to be that you believe "He asked them to send him blackmail-able material"... means that THAT was the exact way he worded it.

Either that, or you are making it up completely. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.


That's not what you were asking.


Because, obviously, you know better than I, what I was inquiring about?


Yes, that is exactly what you assumed, and are still assuming by continuing the analogy.


And now you are claiming you know my assumptions better than me, too?


Your answer is "they're stupid," which is wrong, offensive and frankly stupid.


We're not talking about MY answer. Evasion.


Is that the purpose of Nationstates now too?


Sure. We've had people married on NSG... people meet up for gatherings, people meet up for work. People get into relationships.

Your argument that the nature of the SITE is somehow responsible is bullshit.


Yes, I know you're not actually asking for my pictures from any sort of want of your own, because I know you were saying it as part of this argument.


Which means you're ignoring the actual question - and dealing with the greater context, rather than answering what, to be honest - seems a fairly simple question.

Ignore the 'being part of the argument' thing. Actually just answer the question. If it helps my argument or your argument - that should be irrelevent if you're being intellectually honest.


I know you're full of shit by the way you're arguing.


Ad hominem. Nice.

The truth is - you DON'T know, for sure, my gender. You might as well admit that.


It's completely relevant.


No, it isn't - because answering the question as a hypothetical situation doesn't REQUIRE you to consider the context of THIS debate, at all.


Your mistake then in assuming he did.


It's not a mistake. You've demonstrated nothing that shows it was more evolved than that. But, in the intersts of fairness, I extended you the option to illustrate what WOULD be a good enough argument, which you have stalwartly refused to do.


No, actually making a genuine attempt will have a different outcome than not trying at all except as part of some half-assed trolling argument. It's relevant.


Only if you're trying to wriggle out of answering the question. Otherwise, you'd overlook what you perceive as weakness.


Hardly. You're getting at that I'm not stupid, while these kids are stupid, and that that's the only 'relevant' difference.


That's not what I'm getting at, at all. I'd never think to presume about whether you are stupid or not - I think it's irrelevent to you answering the question.


Sorry. Your argument is stupid.


Oooh, the crushing grip of reason - you're prepared to be intellectually dishonest... because the 'argument is stupid'.


More accusations of dishonesty. Sorry, they didn't fly before and still aren't flying.


The accusations of dishonesty are based around the fact that you either don't know HOW to answer the question, or you are choosing not to do so for advantage. If it's the former, you could have opened with 'I don't know'. The fact that you didn't, argues that you are refusing to answer for the advantage - which is intellectually dishonest.

If you want me to stop saying it - you're going to have to stop doing it.


I don't know, because I'm not in that circumstance, am I? Because this isn't that circumstance either, is it? Because you're not a sex predator, are you? Because I'm not a teenager, am I?


All of which are irrelevent, and evasion.

The "I don't know" might be real, though. And that's kind of where this whole thing has been heading - you can't think of an argument that would convince you to send blackmailable material to a stranger.


Guess that's not "relevant" and I'm "evading" again, right?


That depends on the 'I don't know'. If that's your actual response, we finally have an answer. On more than one level.


Yeah because if you actually had to address it, you might actually realize you're just blaming the rape victims


Not at all. I've said that what the culprit did wasn't right.


...like a complete ass.

Ah, the ad hominem coup de grace. Classy.

Your total lack of empathy with the victims is pretty shameful.


Thinking that the victims were less of 'victims' than other victims have been, doesn't mean you can't empathise with them.

I similarly feel that people who bungee jump are taking a certain amount of unnecessary risk, but that doesn't mean I don't feel sorry for them when one of them ends up headbutting asphalt.

Ooh, sage advice...



But not taking (or having never heard of) your advice does not make one "stupid."

Your total lack of empathy with the victims is pretty shameful.

It's not advice, it's common sense. This is the internet, you cannot see who you are talking with, therefore you can never fully know who you're talking to, thus there is a high chance that someone is lying to you. Ergo, if you leak sensitive information, there's a good chance someone will use it against you.

You don't need internet safety courses, you don't need advice from a sage. If you step back for a moment and think with the right head, you're going to see what'll happen.


Oh that's what we need - KICK THE ASS of SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS! Brilliant! Those kids need to learn a lesson!

Any more brilliant arguments from the "BLAME THE VICTIM" crowd?

In many, many scenarios, sexual assault victims are not at fault for what happens to them. But being a victim of sexual assault does not automatically absolve you of any blame. Contrary to what many people are saying, it is possible for a victims prior actions to lead them to this sort of situation. In this case, we have at least 2 instances where there should have been a "gut feeling" or where common sense should have taken over and where they should've backed out, stopped what they were doing, or consulted with someone a lot more knowledgeable than they.

People must take preventative measures on their own to avoid situations like these. If I'm traveling into downtown Harrisburg, near where I live, I'm not going there in my shortest skirt and any of my cleavage-bearing shirts. Why? It's up-ing the risk factor. By sending such pictures, that's what these kids did: the up-ed the risk factor.

Yes, someone should kick their ass. Then I guarantee that they wouldn't end up like this again, or they'd at least learn to think before they act. Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time, I was riding my bike in the street while texting on my phone. I drifted into the road, and I didn't see a car coming. I got hit by the car, driven by my neighbor. I wasn't badly hurt, but I was banged up. My dad had me go over to my neighbor's house, apologize profusely to him for not paying attention and causing him to hit me. My father then had me offer to wash my neighbor's car for the rest of the summer. I haven't ever ridden a bike without paying attention since.

There we go. Was I a victim of being hit by a car? Yes. Did my neighbor have some fault? Yeah, he hit me. Did I have some fault? Hell yeah I did.

Therefore, while punishing this guy who did these things, we should also be drilling this lesson into those kids' heads.

No, you entirely made it up.

As you point out, I said: "He asked them to send him blackmail-able material."

Which is true.

That is not what he asked them. Sorry. You're wrong.

You said I assumed: "the kids being blackmailed were informed that they were going to be blackmailed beforehand"

Which I didn't.

Sorry. See above. You did, whether you meant to or not.

The problem appears to be that you believe "He asked them to send him blackmail-able material"... means that THAT was the exact way he worded it.

You certainly implied so, and then compounded it with your other assumptions about what he said, all so you could 'support' your silly "lol they were just stupid" conclusion.

Because, obviously, you know better than I, what I was inquiring about?

I can read.

And now you are claiming you know my assumptions better than me, too?

I can read.

We're not talking about MY answer. Evasion.

Ah, more of the whole "You're evading the answer to my completely irrelevant question!" routine.

Sure. We've had people married on NSG... people meet up for gatherings, people meet up for work. People get into relationships.

Doesn't mean Nationstates is a "social networking site."

Your argument that the nature of the SITE is somehow responsible is bullshit.

I never said it was "responsible," I merely pointed out that that is JUST ONE difference between you here asking me, and the culrpit there, asking his victims.

Which means you're ignoring the actual question - and dealing with the greater context, rather than answering what, to be honest - seems a fairly simple question.

Ignore the 'being part of the argument' thing. Actually just answer the question. If it helps my argument or your argument - that should be irrelevent if you're being intellectually honest.[/quote]

I can't ignore reality. Sorry, I have this thing where I don't role-play with people just for the sake of indulging their invalid analogies just so their offensive little arguments can make sense.

Ad hominem. Nice.

The truth is - you DON'T know, for sure, my gender. You might as well admit that.

So what?

No, it isn't - because answering the question as a hypothetical situation doesn't REQUIRE you to consider the context of THIS debate, at all.

It requires me to as you said, ignore the context of this debate. And for what exactly? What relevance does my willingness or nonwillingness to send you anything have with this situation? Oh, right. Let's just ignore that part.

It's not a mistake. You've demonstrated nothing that shows it was more evolved than that. But, in the intersts of fairness, I extended you the option to illustrate what WOULD be a good enough argument, which you have stalwartly refused to do.

Because what would be a good enough argument for me is irrelevant to what is a good enough argument to seduce minors on Facebook. It is also irrelevant to your condemnation of the victims as "stupid."

Only if you're trying to wriggle out of answering the question.

WTF? Are you even reading what you're supposedly responding to? TRYING TO DO something will guarantee more success than NOT TRYING. This remains true even if you inappropriately lodge a "you're not answeeeering!" wail there.


That's not what I'm getting at, at all. I'd never think to presume about whether you are stupid or not - I think it's irrelevent to you answering the question.

Your question itself is irrelevant. And why not presume I'm stupid? You presumed the kids were stupid.

Oooh, the crushing grip of reason - you're prepared to be intellectually dishonest... because the 'argument is stupid'.


Perhaps when you have a non-stupid argument, I'll refrain from calling it stupid. Until that happens I call it like I see it.


The accusations of dishonesty are based around the fact that you either don't know HOW to answer the question, or you are choosing not to do so for advantage.

What a lovely little false dichotomy.

If it's the former, you could have opened with 'I don't know'. The fact that you didn't, argues that you are refusing to answer for the advantage - which is intellectually dishonest.

If you want me to stop saying it - you're going to have to stop doing it.

Ooh, an ultimatum!

All of which are irrelevent, and evasion.

I've pointed out the relevance. Claiming I didn't is intellectually dishonest.

The "I don't know" might be real, though. And that's kind of where this whole thing has been heading - you can't think of an argument that would convince you to send blackmailable material to a stranger.

Whether anyone can convince me of such is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Wake up when you realize that.


Not at all. I've said that what the culprit did wasn't right.

Yet you blamed the victims. For "stupidity." Which you have no support for.


Ah, the ad hominem coup de grace. Classy.

It'd be an ad hominem if that was my argument. It's just a statement of opinion, though. So you're wrong again - classy!

This brings us to an interesting question -

Are naked pictures of yourself blackmailable material?

It depends on whether you care if anyone sees you naked. If you do, then it's blackmailable material.

Similarly, if anyone ever had a picture of me driving a Ford, I would deem that blackmailable material, and I wouldn't send it to an anonymous person online. I'd probably destroy it utterly.

It's not advice, it's common sense. This is the internet, you cannot see who you are talking with, therefore you can never fully know who you're talking to, thus there is a high chance that someone is lying to you. Ergo, if you leak sensitive information, there's a good chance someone will use it against you.

Huh. A good chance. What probability exactly? Because in my case the probability thus far, in 14 years of using the internet (and sending out sensitive info, ZOMG!) is exactly 0.0.

You don't need internet safety courses, you don't need advice from a sage. If you step back for a moment and think with the right head, you're going to see what'll happen.

You should send that to Hallmark.

In many, many scenarios, sexual assault victims are not at fault for what happens to them. But being a victim of sexual assault does not automatically absolve you of any blame.

I guess not if you're male.

Contrary to what many people are saying, it is possible for a victims prior actions to lead them to this sort of situation. In this case, we have at least 2 instances where there should have been a "gut feeling" or where common sense should have taken over and where they should've backed out, stopped what they were doing, or consulted with someone a lot more knowledgeable than they.

That's your evidence for them being stupid, and to blame? "They should have known better?" Really?

People must take preventative measures on their own to avoid situations like these.

I guess they missed the memo. That means they have lower than average intelligence and are to blame.

If I'm traveling into downtown Harrisburg, near where I live, I'm not going there in my shortest skirt and any of my cleavage-bearing shirts. Why? It's up-ing the risk factor. By sending such pictures, that's what these kids did: the up-ed the risk factor.

Yes, only the stupid kids take risks. Clearly.

Yes, someone should kick their ass. Then I guarantee that they wouldn't end up like this again

Yeah I guess being sexually assaulted wasn't enough of a lesson for them? You make me sick.

There we go. Was I a victim of being hit by a car? Yes. Did my neighbor have some fault? Yeah, he hit me. Did I have some fault? Hell yeah I did.

It's laughable that you even compare the situations.

Therefore, while punishing this guy who did these things, we should also be drilling this lesson into those kids' heads.

Tell me you don't have kids.

"Mom, I was blackmailed and coerced into getting sexually molested!"

"You stupid kid! Come here so I can kick your ass and learn you not to do that again!"

You know nothing. The culprit could have phrased his request EXACTLY how I just did.


Yes, he could have. He also could have spent months chatting online for hours on end with each and every victim before he ever asked them any such thing. He could have provided them with entirely plausible nude pictures of a teenage girl, claiming it was himself, and begged them to reciprocate. He could have done a lot of things which make the choice of the victims to trust him exceedingly understandable and not especially "stupid" at all. That is the point. You appear to be assuming that the victims must have been stupid, and there simply isn't evidence to support that conclusion.

Yes, he could have. He also could have spent months chatting online for hours on end with each and every victim before he ever asked them any such thing. He could have provided them with entirely plausible nude pictures of a teenage girl, claiming it was himself, and begged them to reciprocate. He could have done a lot of things which make the choice of the victims to trust him exceedingly understandable and not especially "stupid" at all. That is the point. You appear to be assuming that the victims must have been stupid, and there simply isn't evidence to support that conclusion.

No - the problem is - no matter how much cajoling he did, no matter how sweet he talked, no matter how many pictures of little girls he sent them, no matter what he did...

...there's still the problem that it's pretty dumb to send anything personal (much less naked pictures, much less naked pictures of YOURSELF) to someone you ONLY know as a series of electrons on the back of your monitor screen.

If they'd even TALKED to him, before they sent the pictures, they'd have figured out he wasn't a girl. When did NAKED pictures become the first resort? What happened to meeting each other, or talking to each other?

But what I REALLY don't get - is why people are making excuses. If the culprit HAD been a girl - would it have been okay?

That's what I'm saying - just thinking 'he' was a 'she' doesn't excuse the sending of the naked photos.


A person you've never met, asks you to send them naked photos. A person you don't know, a person you've never even talked to.

Yeah - sending a picture (a naked picture, no less) under those circumstances IS stupid.

Tell me you don't have kids.

"Mom, I was blackmailed and coerced into getting sexually molested!"

"You stupid kid! Come here so I can kick your ass and learn you not to do that again!"

"drilling this lession" does not mean Punishing the kids, but driving home the fact that you send pics of yourself naked, give personal information, etc is DANGEROUS. especially if you don't know the person you're sending the information well.

Huh. A good chance. What probability exactly? Because in my case the probability thus far, in 14 years of using the internet (and sending out sensitive info, ZOMG!) is exactly 0.0.

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean the chance doesn't exist.

And no, your probability in 14 years hasn't been exactly 0.00%. How do you know someone you sent sensitive info to didn't get ready to hit that "post" button and then pull back at the last moment and think better?


I guess not if you're male.

Male or female, it doesn't matter.


That's your evidence for them being stupid, and to blame? "They should have known better?" Really?

I didn't say they're 100% to blame. I've made that clear in this thread before. However, they're not 100% innocent. This isn't a black and white situation.

And generally, when one does something that has a high risk of having damaging consequences, it's classified as stupid.


Yes, only the stupid kids take risks. Clearly.

There's a difference between taking a calculated risk in doing something, and going ahead and doing something uncalculated with a very high degree of ending poorly.


Yeah I guess being sexually assaulted wasn't enough of a lesson for them? You make me sick.

And you're going to make me sick if you sit there and tell me that in today's world, with near everyone pounding it into our children's heads not to share any information on themselves over the internet to people they don't actually know, these kids can't be told "you should've known better."


It's laughable that you even compare the situations.

I don't really see the laughablity. There's a difference in degree of severity, obviously. But the point, and parallel, stand.


Tell me you don't have kids.

"Mom, I was blackmailed and coerced into getting sexually molested!"

"You stupid kid! Come here so I can kick your ass and learn you not to do that again!"

It's more like: "You dumbass," followed by some yelling, some loud lecturing, some calmer lecturing, and then a phone call to the police. And of course, there's a bit of "where did I go wrong" thrown in their over all of this.

Why? Because I have to hold them and myself responsible for their actions on their part (and me not knowing, evidently), just as this sicko has to be held responsible for his actions.

No - the problem is - no matter how much cajoling he did, no matter how sweet he talked, no matter how many pictures of little girls he sent them, no matter what he did...

...there's still the problem that it's pretty dumb to send anything personal (much less naked pictures, much less naked pictures of YOURSELF) to someone you ONLY know as a series of electrons on the back of your monitor screen.

If they'd even TALKED to him, before they sent the pictures, they'd have figured out he wasn't a girl. When did NAKED pictures become the first resort? What happened to meeting each other, or talking to each other?

But what I REALLY don't get - is why people are making excuses. If the culprit HAD been a girl - would it have been okay?

That's what I'm saying - just thinking 'he' was a 'she' doesn't excuse the sending of the naked photos.


A person you've never met, asks you to send them naked photos. A person you don't know, a person you've never even talked to.

Yeah - sending a picture (a naked picture, no less) under those circumstances IS stupid.

Just curious, for clarification - does it stop being stupid if you have met the person in question? Why?

Just curious, for clarification - does it stop being stupid if you have met the person in question? Why?

Not 100%. If you send after that, you're taking more of a calculated risk, rather than a plain old risk. You have a much better idea of who and possibly where it's going to. But of course, it's the internet, and it's still a big risk, and I would, personally, still classify it as kinda stupid.

That is not what he asked them. Sorry. You're wrong.


The material is blackmailable - we know that, because he blackmailed them. He asked them, we know that, because the article says he did.

So... fail.


Sorry. See above. You did, whether you meant to or not.


Your inability to read is not my problem.


You certainly implied so, and then compounded it with your other assumptions about what he said, all so you could 'support' your silly "lol they were just stupid" conclusion.


My 'conclusion' isn't 'they were stupid'.

They WERE stupid, but that's not what my conclusion was.


I can read.


Apparently not.


Ah, more of the whole "You're evading the answer to my completely irrelevant question!" routine.


Whether or not you consider it irrelevent - is irrelevent.

I can show it to be relevent (and have done so), and you are still evading.


Doesn't mean Nationstates is a "social networking site."


And Facebook BEING a 'social networking' site doesn't excuse sending 'tackle out' pictures to people.

Thank you for making my point for me.


I can't ignore reality. Sorry, I have this thing where I don't role-play with people just for the sake of indulging their invalid analogies just so their offensive little arguments can make sense.


I'm not talking about analogies. The argument is only 'offensive' because you believe it so.

All you have to do, is answer a fairly simple question - which you keep evading.


So what?


So one of your 'excuses' was bullshit.


It requires me to as you said, ignore the context of this debate. And for what exactly? What relevance does my willingness or nonwillingness to send you anything have with this situation? Oh, right. Let's just ignore that part.


No, that's EXACTLY the point. You are not willing - under ANY circumstances. No matter how I phrased it, no matter who I claim to be. You're just not going to send those pictures.


WTF? Are you even reading what you're supposedly responding to? TRYING TO DO something will guarantee more success than NOT TRYING. This remains true even if you inappropriately lodge a "you're not answeeeering!" wail there.


That doesn't even make a sentence, let alone make sense.


Your question itself is irrelevant. And why not presume I'm stupid? You presumed the kids were stupid.


My question is entirely relevent.

If you're going to make the comparison to rape, you have to show that the participants were unwilling. They provided the blackmail material entirely willingly.

HALF of the participants then expanded on that, by also engaging in far MORE blackmailable acts.

You, yourself are arguing that nothing could induce you to send the blackmail material in the first place. Where do you stand on the other?


Perhaps when you have a non-stupid argument, I'll refrain from calling it stupid. Until that happens I call it like I see it.


The fact that you are not able to answer the question is not a marker of the quality of the argument.


What a lovely little false dichotomy.


You see a third choice? You can't answer the question, or you won't - that's about it.


Ooh, an ultimatum!


If you consider "Keep putting your hand in the fire and you'll get burned" to be an ultimatum, yes.


I've pointed out the relevance. Claiming I didn't is intellectually dishonest.


Not at all. You said it's not the same circumstance. I agreed, and asked that you answer the question anyway.

To then trot out the same tired answers citing the difference in circumstances is not 'pointing out the relevence' - it's avoiding answering the question.

Which means you CAN answer the question, and are CHOOSING not to.

...which is where I call your argument intellectually dishonest.


Whether anyone can convince me of such is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Wake up when you realize that.


No - it's entirely relevent.

We both agree that the culprit did wrong - that's not what you've been arguing with me about. You've been arguing over how much of a victim each of the victims was. And the fact that you would NOT indulge the culprit's requests under ANY circumstances speaks directly to that.


Yet you blamed the victims. For "stupidity." Which you have no support for.


Sending someone you KNOW naked pictures is pretty stupid.

Sending someone you DON'T know naked picture is stupid. Period.

There is an abundance of 'support'. 31 counts of it.


It'd be an ad hominem if that was my argument. It's just a statement of opinion, though. So you're wrong again - classy!

No - it's an ad hominem because you're attacking me, rather than my argument. I can find you a link to explain logical fallacies to you, if you like.

Just curious, for clarification - does it stop being stupid if you have met the person in question? Why?

It could still be stupid, but at least you'd have got a few considerations out of the way, first - like making sure they were at least the same GENDER they claimed to be.

In general, sending personal information (and moreso for this KIND of material) to people is stupid. Because it could be capitalised on by that person, because it could be intercepted, found or otherwise misused. Because you could end up emailing it to someone other than you thought - either because you did something like typed the wrong email address, or accidentally hit "Reply To All", or because the email address you were originally given was some old granny, or a kid.

The default is 'stupid'.

You better be really sure about what you are sending, and who to, before you send something. If you accumulate ENOUGH reason, it might not be entirely stupid. But even if it's your S.O. for example, it's still never a GREAT idea to send such material over such a medium. The risks are just too great.

Just curious, for clarification - does it stop being stupid if you have met the person in question? Why?

I would think so. because after a face to face meeting, then it comes down to the con artist's skills. Especially in this case where HE was pretending to be a SHE.

And this is assuming you meet the person multiple times... and NOT just once.

Not 100%. If you send after that, you're taking more of a calculated risk, rather than a plain old risk. You have a much better idea of who and possibly where it's going to. But of course, it's the internet, and it's still a big risk, and I would, personally, still classify it as kinda stupid.

This^^

It's what I took 500 words to say.

This^^

It's what I took 500 words to say.

It's okay, I've got your back.

It's okay, I've got your back.

And apparently, also my arguments, just in more concise form. :)

And apparently, also my arguments, just in more concise form. :)

I paraphrase everything. I'm not eloquent, but I'm shorter'n hell.

...there's still the problem that it's pretty dumb to send anything personal (much less naked pictures, much less naked pictures of YOURSELF) to someone you ONLY know as a series of electrons on the back of your monitor screen.


I don't think anyone's denying this.

I paraphrase everything. I'm not eloquent, but I'm shorter'n hell.

That's what she... Sorry.

That's what she... Sorry.

Yes....yes, that is. Because I said it! :p

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean the chance doesn't exist.


So I'm just very lucky, is your position?

And no, your probability in 14 years hasn't been exactly 0.00%. How do you know someone you sent sensitive info to didn't get ready to hit that "post" button and then pull back at the last moment and think better?

Were you discussing a good chance of blackmail, or a good chance of MAYBE NAH NEVERMIND blackmail?

Male or female, it doesn't matter.

I think it does. There is a marked difference in how people view female sexual assault victims and male sexual assault victims. There is even more stigma attached to males in that situation. There's numerous studies on it.

I didn't say they're 100% to blame. I've made that clear in this thread before. However, they're not 100% innocent. This isn't a black and white situation.

Yes. It is. The one who committed numerous crimes is 100% guilty for committing them.

And generally, when one does something that has a high risk of having damaging consequences, it's classified as stupid.

Generally, male rape victims get blamed for being stupid, weak, gay, or otherwise asking for it. They should have fought better. They should have done this. Should have done that. On and on and on with the rosy lens of hindsight and lofty pronouncements from someone who has very clearly never been sexually assaulted.

You're still wrong. You've nothing to "classify" these victims as stupid except your own bias and your own assumptions.


And you're going to make me sick if you sit there and tell me that in today's world, with near everyone pounding it into our children's heads not to share any information on themselves over the internet to people they don't actually know, these kids can't be told "you should've known better."

I don't care if I make you sick and highly doubt I have the capacity to given the sick shit you've said and are saying.

I don't really see the laughablity. There's a difference in degree of severity, obviously. But the point, and parallel, stand.

It stands as being irrelvant and fucking retarded.

It's more like: "You dumbass," followed by some yelling, some loud lecturing, some calmer lecturing, and then a phone call to the police. And of course, there's a bit of "where did I go wrong" thrown in their over all of this.

Why? Because I have to hold them and myself responsible for their actions on their part (and me not knowing, evidently), just as this sicko has to be held responsible for his actions.

Yeah, clearly the best way to handle a rape victim is by hurling verbal abuse at them.

You seriously make me sick.

Yes....yes, that is. Because I said it! :p

You're a woman? I had no idea.

Uh oh, we're going to get another "BY THE WAY! I'M A WOMAN" threads. Perhaps we should have a stickied thread with an exhaustive list?

...but I'm shorter'n hell.

I recommend: http://www.shevibe.com/ellie-shoes-601-goldie-6-sandal.aspx

It could still be stupid, but at least you'd have got a few considerations out of the way, first - like making sure they were at least the same GENDER they claimed to be.

In general, sending personal information (and moreso for this KIND of material) to people is stupid. Because it could be capitalised on by that person, because it could be intercepted, found or otherwise misused. Because you could end up emailing it to someone other than you thought - either because you did something like typed the wrong email address, or accidentally hit "Reply To All", or because the email address you were originally given was some old granny, or a kid.

The default is 'stupid'.

You better be really sure about what you are sending, and who to, before you send something. If you accumulate ENOUGH reason, it might not be entirely stupid. But even if it's your S.O. for example, it's still never a GREAT idea to send such material over such a medium. The risks are just too great.

Okay, at this point I at least think I understand your argument.

The problem is that, on a fundamental level, it kinda boils down to "trusting people is stupid." Which is a perfectly valid, albeit cynical, opinion, but one with which I happen to try very hard not to agree. I really do believe that SOME people are worth trusting, and the tricky part is determining which people they are. I don't think you're necessarily stupid if you get it wrong - naive, perhaps, but not stupid, and without any information as to how hard these kids tried to figure out if the "girl" they were talking to was trustworthy, I just don't think it's fair to them to assume they were just morons who didn't think.

Incidentally, I come from a rather interesting perspective on this, because there are exactly two people in the world who have been in possession of comparable blackmail-worthy material for me. One I knew for years in his physically-present self before allowing him access to such things; the other acquired them the very first time we met in person. The former turned out to be a dishonest bastard. The latter turned out to be trustworthy. In which case, if any, was I stupid?

Generally, male rape victims get blamed for being stupid, weak, gay, or otherwise asking for it.


And yet, the only person making those claims in this thread, is you. It's not been even so much as mentioned by 'the other side'.


It stands as being irrelvant and fucking retarded.


Earlier, you were open to the occassional ad hominem fallacy.

Now, you're just flaming.

You might want to turn your monitor off and go grab a hot chocolate or something.

So I'm just very lucky, is your position?



Were you discussing a good chance of blackmail, or a good chance of MAYBE NAH NEVERMIND blackmail?



I think it does. There is a marked difference in how people view female sexual assault victims and male sexual assault victims. There is even more stigma attached to males in that situation. There's numerous studies on it.



Yes. It is. The one who committed numerous crimes is 100% guilty for committing them.



Generally, male rape victims get blamed for being stupid, weak, gay, or otherwise asking for it. They should have fought better. They should have done this. Should have done that. On and on and on with the rosy lens of hindsight and lofty pronouncements from someone who has very clearly never been sexually assaulted.

You're still wrong. You've nothing to "classify" these victims as stupid except your own bias and your own assumptions.




I don't care if I make you sick and highly doubt I have the capacity to given the sick shit you've said and are saying.



It stands as being irrelvant and fucking retarded.



Yeah, clearly the best way to handle a rape victim is by hurling verbal abuse at them.

You seriously make me sick.

At no point did I say that I was defending the person who is blackmailing these children. However, how many other children did not fall for this trap? Fault should be laid upon either these kids, or their parents, for allowing this to happen to them, rather than someone else. What sets these kids apart from the other kids in the class who didn't fall for it?

Also- on a personal aside, at no point did I say that I would verbally abuse them. I was only saying that I would have to perhaps have a talk about being more cautious on the internet. True, perhaps yelling is wrong, but I don't see how a lecture is considered verbally abusive- especially in light of your last three replies implying that I am disgusting and mentally disabled"

Okay, at this point I at least think I understand your argument.

The problem is that, on a fundamental level, it kinda boils down to "trusting people is stupid." Which is a perfectly valid, albeit cynical, opinion, but one with which I happen to try very hard not to agree. I really do believe that SOME people are worth trusting, and the tricky part is determining which people they are. I don't think you're necessarily stupid if you get it wrong - naive, perhaps, but not stupid, and without any information as to how hard these kids tried to figure out if the "girl" they were talking to was trustworthy, I just don't think it's fair to them to assume they were just morons who didn't think.

Incidentally, I come from a rather interesting perspective on this, because there are exactly two people in the world who have been in possession of comparable blackmail-worthy material for me. One I knew for years in his physically-present self before allowing him access to such things; the other acquired them the very first time we met in person. The former turned out to be a dishonest bastard. The latter turned out to be trustworthy. In which case, if any, was I stupid?

I don't know whether you recall, or even if you were present at the time, but sometime - way, way back in the mists of NSG - we had a thread about how you met your partner, and I volunteered the information that my entire relationship originated in a yahoo chatroom.

I also have a perspective on it.

At some point, every person makes decisions of trust - you look and you leap, or you just leap. I think it's folly to just leap.

In your case, you at least made some tentative investigation in each case... you at least ascertained they'd told you the truth about their gender, for example. It seems crazy to even be discussing that as part of the process.

Such safeguards will never completely remove the possibility that someone will turn out to be a fuckhead. But assuming everyone is a fuckhead until proven otherwise is a pretty good first line of defence.

The material is blackmailable - we know that, because he blackmailed them. He asked them, we know that, because the article says he did.

So... fail.

He didn't ask them specifically to be blackmailed.


Your inability to read is not my problem.

What was that about ad hominems?


My 'conclusion' isn't 'they were stupid'.

They WERE stupid, but that's not what my conclusion was.

You concluded they were stupid. That you're now going to claim some other conclusion doesn't change that. Honestly, you're just flailing irrationally now.

Apparently not.

More ad hominem. I love it!

Whether or not you consider it irrelevent - is irrelevent.

I guess you've given up on rational argument and have literally taken to "Na uh" and "Yeah huh" as some sort of rebuttal. Concession accepted.

I can show it to be relevent (and have done so), and you are still evading.

Whether you consider me "evading" or not is irrelevant.

And Facebook BEING a 'social networking' site doesn't excuse sending 'tackle out' pictures to people.

Sending pictures of people is one of those things you do on social networking sites. Nationstates however is not a social networking site, so that is one reason why your asking me to give you a naked picture of myself failed. The question I was supposedly "evading" was just that - why did your attempt fail.

Get it yet? No? That's alright.

I'm not talking about analogies.

Nah, you're just trying to make them.

The argument is only 'offensive' because you believe it so.

Well no, your blaming of the victim really is offensive.

All you have to do, is answer a fairly simple question - which you keep evading.

I've given you more than enough answers. Sorry you ignored them. That's your own choice.

So one of your 'excuses' was bullshit.

Only one of my "excuses" was actually required for my point.

No, that's EXACTLY the point. You are not willing - under ANY circumstances.

I can AND HAVE sent naked pictures of myself to people on the internet. Just because I haven't TO YOU is irrelevant.

The fact that I'm not willing to tell you how, or pump out a magical sentence or "paragraph" for you to get one from me, or even the fact that I'm not willing to send anything TO YOU is IRRELEVANT.

No matter how I phrased it, no matter who I claim to be. You're just not going to send those pictures.

Yeah, or maybe some antagonistic guy arguing that rape victims are "stupid" just doesn't turn on my "send naked pictures" button. Golly!


If you're going to make the comparison to rape, you have to show that the participants were unwilling. They provided the blackmail material entirely willingly.

Not knowing they were to be blackmailed, this is a moot point.

HALF of the participants then expanded on that, by also engaging in far MORE blackmailable acts.

Do you not actually know how blackmail works? Apparently not or you wouldn't be saying something stupid like that.

You, yourself are arguing that nothing could induce you to send the blackmail material in the first place.

False as shown above. Get a new argument, one not so made of fail.

The fact that you are not able to answer the question is not a marker of the quality of the argument.

Yawn.

You see a third choice? You can't answer the question, or you won't - that's about it.

It is an invalid, inappropriate and irrelevant question. Which I answered anyway.


To then trot out the same tired answers citing the difference in circumstances

Because you insisted there was no difference and tried to dismiss or declare irrelevant all the difference I pointed out. If you didn't, I wouldn't have had to make you "tired" by pointing out the same stupid flaws in your same, stupid, argument.

Which means you CAN answer the question, and are CHOOSING not to.

...which is where I call your argument intellectually dishonest.

Coming from you? I'm taking that as a compliment.


And the fact that you would NOT indulge the culprit's requests under ANY circumstances speaks directly to that.

Calling it a "fact" doesn't make it so. Also, whether *I* would indulge anyone is STILL IRRELEVANT.

There is an abundance of 'support'. 31 counts of it.

LOL. Yeah. Victim is to blame for being stupid. Based on the fact that there are victims. This makes them stupid. Because victims are to blame for being stupid. Based on the fact that there are victims...

Cute.

I'm done with you.

They didn't "choose to be blackmailed." Shit, you people really ARE saying they were asking for it. Blackmail is coercion, and if you don't think coercing someone into performing sexual acts is wrong, then I suggest you do a fucking double-think my friend.

Thank you Orwell.

I never said it wasn't wrong. I said they were stupid to give away naked pictures of themselves to someone they had never met over the internet when they weren't willing to have someone else find them. It's the internet. Anything you do can be found by someone. If you're going to use the internet, you need to remember that.

But yes, blackmailing them because of their stupidity is wrong. But they're still stupid.

They were willing to share with one person, not the entire world. They did not know they were going to be blackmailed. They did not choose to be blackmailed.

It's the internet. It is accessible to the entire world. And once the picture has been given to someone else, it's out of their control. These are things you should remember when using the internet.

Blackmail is wrong. Giving away naked pictures of yourself to someone you don't know is stupid.

Furthermore, as many of these victims were minors they had no legal right to consent to sex ANYWAY, so any sex acts performed even WITHOUT coercion and rape was a criminal act.

The youngest was 15, apparently. In a lot of places, that's above the age of consent. Still child pornography, but legal to fuck.

I can't fucking believe the shit arguments you people are pulling out of your collective asses.

Give us some credit. Coordinating the sharing of asses takes a lot of work. Going to the bathroom is a chore, and wiping is a nightmare.

At no point did I say that I was defending the person who is blackmailing these children.

Somewhere around the part where you said that they are to blame.

However, how many other children did not fall for this trap? Fault should be laid upon either these kids, or their parents, for allowing this to happen to them, rather than someone else.

And here too.

What sets these kids apart from the other kids in the class who didn't fall for it?

The answer you would have pose is "stupidity." Unfortunately you still got nothing other than your own assumptions to support this. A non-argument.

Also- on a personal aside, at no point did I say that I would verbally abuse them. I was only saying that I would have to perhaps have a talk about being more cautious on the internet. True, perhaps yelling is wrong

Telling your children "You dumbass" sounds like verbal abuse to me. Especially if you're telling them this when they've just been sexually abused. Hell you're telling them this before calling the authorities.

Go play blind man with someone else.

, but I don't see how a lecture is considered verbally abusive- especially in light of your last three replies implying that I am disgusting and mentally disabled"

I am referring to your argument, which remains both unintelligent and extremely offensive.

Thank you Orwell.

I never said it wasn't wrong. I said they were stupid to give away naked pictures of themselves to someone they had never met over the internet when they weren't willing to have someone else find them. It's the internet. Anything you do can be found by someone. If you're going to use the internet, you need to remember that.

But yes, blackmailing them because of their stupidity is wrong. But they're still stupid.

Really? Go find for me that one picture I sent that one time. It's of a cat I used to have.

I sent it over the internet - should be easy for you to find right? In fact, it should be hard for you NOT to find. It should be so easy to find, that you would have to be stupid to not find it. Right?

It's the internet. It is accessible to the entire world. And once the picture has been given to someone else, it's out of their control. These are things you should remember when using the internet.

Blackmail is wrong. Giving away naked pictures of yourself to someone you don't know is stupid.

I am sensing a whole lot of sexual repression and mistrust from you people now. I guess you knew - knew of course - that everyone you meet online is a sex predator. Well, that must be because you're such geniuses!

But, that doesn't make anyone else stupid.

DOING a stupid thing doesn't even make you stupid.

DOING a stupid thing doesn't even make you stupid.

Stupid is as stupid does. The setup was too perfect.

He didn't ask them specifically to be blackmailed.


You think?


You concluded they were stupid.


No - I started from the asusmption they were stupid, because the story starts with evidence of them being stupid.


Sending pictures of people is one of those things you do on social networking sites.


Unless the TOS has changed, sending NAKED pictures isn't what you do on Facebook.


Only one of my "excuses" was actually required for my point.


Which I take as admission that you know you padded the rest. Good to know.


Yeah, or maybe some antagonistic guy arguing that rape victims are "stupid" just doesn't turn on my "send naked pictures" button. Golly!


I didn't argue that rape victims are stupid.

This doesn't even qualify as intellectual dishonesty - you've apparently decided that, if mere facts don't fit, you'll lie.


Yeah. Victim is to blame for being stupid. Based on the fact that there are victims.

No - victim is stupid, based on the fact that they acted stupid.


This makes them stupid. Because victims are to blame for being stupid. Based on the fact that there are victims...


Another of your arguments of what you WISH I'd said.

Dorothy will be looking for you, oh King of the Strawmen.


I'm done with you.

It's cute that you think you had ever actually started.

You swaggered in and produced page after page of ad hominem and logical fallacy, refused to answer even the simplest questions, and went out on the high note of flaming.

You are 'done with' me, the same way that a virgin is 'done with' fucking.

The answer you would have pose is "stupidity."

Interestingly, the answer YOU pose, each time, is 'stupidity'.

You are 'done with' me, the same way that a virgin is 'done with' fucking.

HOLY SHIT! :eek: Take the whole damn cookie jar! Damn!

Impressive.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/5728/awesomezl4.png

Somewhere around the part where you said that they are to blame.



And here too.

Giving blame where some, some is due ((to the parents and kids)) isn't defending anyone else.



The answer you would have pose is "stupidity." Unfortunately you still got nothing other than your own assumptions to support this. A non-argument.

I don't care about "my" answer. What's yours?



Telling your children "You dumbass" sounds like verbal abuse to me. Especially if you're telling them this when they've just been sexually abused. Hell you're telling them this before calling the authorities.

If "Dumbass" is verbal abuse to you, then you have a very, very weak skin.


I am referring to your argument, which remains both unintelligent and extremely offensive.

How am I offending you?

Apparently in your own world, doing something 'stupid' means you are a stupid person. Cute!

We don't all live in your own little world.

[quote]Which I take as admission that you know you padded the rest.

"I take this as admission that I'm right! LOL thanks for admitting I'm right!"

I didn't argue that rape victims are stupid.

Just these ones in particular. Big whoop.

This doesn't even qualify as intellectual dishonesty - you've apparently decided that, if mere facts don't fit, you'll lie.

I haven't made a single lie in this entire thread.

Really? Go find for me that one picture I sent that one time. It's of a cat I used to have.

I sent it over the internet - should be easy for you to find right? In fact, it should be hard for you NOT to find. It should be so easy to find, that you would have to be stupid to not find it. Right?

First, I never said finding specific things on the internet was easy, I said it was possible.
Second, you have to be motivated. I'm not.
Third, I'm not a computer programmer. If I was, I could probably come up with a program to scan every page of NSG for the thread instead of spending the next several hours trying.
Rest assured. If I had several hours of my time to waste, I could find it. Fortunately, I don't.

Also, don't bother trying to be smart and saying that you deleted the picture or something odd like that: all pages get cached in a server somewhere and with the right program and enough time, you can find it.

I am sensing a whole lot of sexual repression

Sex right after you wake up, before class, is amazing. Better than coffee. And that thing she does with her tongue to my nipple...

and mistrust from you people now.

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2009/02/06/news/local/doc498ce68f9ef22107636903.txt
http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=9791127&nav=2FH5 [90,000, wtf!?]
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6821803&page=1
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=20&art_id=77632&sid=22464457&con_type=1
http://www.channel3000.com/news/18608428/detail.html
http://www.weny.com/News-Local.asp?ARTICLE3864=9141274
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2009/02/04/8267286.html
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-id.predators01feb01,0,5284404.story
http://www.kidk.com/news/local/38572142.html

Remind me again why I shouldn't be mistrustful?

I guess you knew - knew of course - that everyone you meet online is a sex predator.

Why, even you...!

Well, that must be because you're such geniuses!

Would you like to see my Nobel Prize?

But, that doesn't make anyone else stupid.

DOING a stupid thing doesn't even make you stupid.

No, but it certainly makes everyone else think you are.

If "Dumbass" is verbal abuse to you, then you have a very, very weak skin.


I have a basic understanding of what is appropriate, and what is abusive, with regards to children. Calling them names is immature and verbally abusive, regardless of the names, and especially coming from parents.

Weak skin? Hardly. No, my problem is I'm apparently arguing with a bunch of internet trolls too busy high-fiving each other over clever one-liners.

First, I never said finding specific things on the internet was easy, I said it was possible.
Second, you have to be motivated. I'm not.
Third, I'm not a computer programmer. If I was, I could probably come up with a program to scan every page of NSG for the thread instead of spending the next several hours trying.
Rest assured. If I had several hours of my time to waste, I could find it. Fortunately, I don't.

What a cop out. It doesn't have to be 'easy' or 'possible,' the point was that I should expect a "good chance" of this. Apparently that 'good chance' is... 0%.

You couldn't find it if you tried, and you know it.

Also, don't bother trying to be smart and saying that you deleted the picture or something odd like that: all pages get cached in a server somewhere and with the right program and enough time, you can find it.

I'll just be smart in knowing you can't find it.


http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2009/02/06/news/local/doc498ce68f9ef22107636903.txt
http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=9791127&nav=2FH5 [90,000, wtf!?]
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6821803&page=1
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=20&art_id=77632&sid=22464457&con_type=1
http://www.channel3000.com/news/18608428/detail.html
http://www.weny.com/News-Local.asp?ARTICLE3864=9141274
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2009/02/04/8267286.html
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-id.predators01feb01,0,5284404.story
http://www.kidk.com/news/local/38572142.html

Remind me again why I shouldn't be mistrustful?

I never said you shouldn't. I said you are not "stupid" if you aren't.


No, but it certainly makes everyone else think you are.

Then "everyone else" is wrong.

And a bit stupid.

I have a basic understanding of what is appropriate, and what is abusive, with regards to children. Calling them names is immature and verbally abusive, regardless of the names, and especially coming from parents.

Weak skin? Hardly. No, my problem is I'm apparently arguing with a bunch of internet trolls too busy high-fiving each other over clever one-liners.

Would saying "high five" right now count as a clever one-liner?





It's a twofer!

I have a basic understanding of what is appropriate, and what is abusive, with regards to children. Calling them names is immature and verbally abusive, regardless of the names, and especially coming from parents.

Weak skin? Hardly. No, my problem is I'm apparently arguing with a bunch of internet trolls too busy high-fiving each other over clever one-liners.

Heh heh, we're the trolls, hmm? Shall I go back over your posts? Start contributing to this thread, or just leave already. You've done nothing but bash the participants and take everything they've said out of context. And when called on it, you maintain your farce.

Please, you've done nothing but try and accuse others of using strawman arguments rather than provide your own, original arguments.

Heh heh, we're the trolls, hmm?

Indeed.

Shall I go back over your posts?

Sure. That would probably save me the time and trouble of repeating them every time GnI says "Na uh" or "Noyadint" or whatever clever rebuttal is coming.

Start contributing to this thread, or just leave already.

I've consistently maintained my argument, which is on topic. The only people who started trying to make this about *me* are... get ready for it... GnI, beginning with his questions about "Why haven't you been tricked?" by his "I'm a girl, send me pics" post.

You've proceded to dogpile on me with a bunch of malarky about me being intellectually dishonest, thin-skinned, lying, etc etc etc.

So no, I won't be intimidated out of this thread just because you can't quite adequately argue your points.

You've done nothing but bash the participants and take everything they've said out of context.

Oh, the "you took it out of context" line. My ass. This is just yet another accusation with no support behind it.

And when called on it, you maintain your farce.

Please, you've done nothing but try and accuse others of using strawman arguments rather than provide your own, original arguments.

Oh, we have to have "original" arguments now? Then I'm afraid you all fail. "Stupid is as stupid does" doesn't work. Intelligent people can make mistakes. Making a mistake, even if you deem it stupid, doesn't make someone stupid.

Disagree? Fine. Do explain how. But spare me the "leave the thread, you're being mean" crap. And if your only arguments are strawmen, circular reasonings and lies, don't expect me not to call you on it.

What a cop out. It doesn't have to be 'easy' or 'possible,' the point was that I should expect a "good chance" of this. Apparently that 'good chance' is... 0%.

You couldn't find it if you tried, and you know it.

You have proven nothing except my own laziness. Which I readily admit to.

I'll just be smart in knowing you can't find it.

"I can't find it" and "No one can find it" are two different things. Haven't you ever heard of a "hacker"? Why do you think they do?

I never said you shouldn't. I said you are not "stupid" if you aren't.

So it's not stupid to leave your drink at the table uncovered while you face the other way entirely and talk to someone at a party with 200 people that you don't know?

Then "everyone else" is wrong.

And a bit stupid.

Why are they stupid? They only did something stupid - assume you're stupid - and doing something stupid doesn't make you stupid.

You have proven nothing except my own laziness. Which I readily admit to.


Then someone else surely can. It should be rather inevitable, in fact. It should be so inevitable that I must be stupid in order to not expect it.

"I can't find it" and "No one can find it" are two different things. Haven't you ever heard of a "hacker"? Why do you think they do?

I'm pretty sure they don't go around and look at every single picture sent by anyone to anyone else over the internet.

So it's not stupid to leave your drink at the table uncovered while you face the other way entirely and talk to someone at a party with 200 people that you don't know?

That depends on the party, but that's a mistake anyone can make. Particularly when drinking. Doing so doesn't however translate to stupidity, or deserving of whatever ills come.

Why are they stupid? They only did something stupid - assume you're stupid - and doing something stupid doesn't make you stupid.

I was being facetious with the "a bit stupid" remark. Thought that was kind of obvious since yes, my point is doing something stupid doesn't make you stupid.

I was being facetious with the "a bit stupid" remark. Thought that was kind of obvious since yes, my point is doing something stupid doesn't make you stupid.

A great shrimp boat captain once said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

I don't know whether you recall, or even if you were present at the time, but sometime - way, way back in the mists of NSG - we had a thread about how you met your partner, and I volunteered the information that my entire relationship originated in a yahoo chatroom.

I also have a perspective on it.

At some point, every person makes decisions of trust - you look and you leap, or you just leap. I think it's folly to just leap.

In your case, you at least made some tentative investigation in each case... you at least ascertained they'd told you the truth about their gender, for example. It seems crazy to even be discussing that as part of the process.

Such safeguards will never completely remove the possibility that someone will turn out to be a fuckhead. But assuming everyone is a fuckhead until proven otherwise is a pretty good first line of defence.

Okay. At this point, then, I think we just have to agree to disagree slightly - I agree that going through life with "you're all fuckheads" as a default attitude may be the safest way to live, but it's a damned depressing one, and I would never think someone was "stupid" for being rather more trusting and optimistic. Like I said before: naive, maybe (which, after all, one would rather expect teenagers to be) - stupid, no. I think we just have different philosophies on what constitutes stupidity, and as long as we're in agreement that what may or may not have been stupid behavior on the part of the victims in no way justifies what this asshole did, then I'm happy to leave it at that.

A great shrimp boat captain once said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Well, if we are to take the words of a fictional moron as gospel, then since everyone has done at least one stupid thing in their life, everybody on earth is stupid, and calling any one person stupid is as meaningless and redundant as calling them a human being.

People keep claiming it's a double standard, but the only double standard I'm seeing applied here is by you. You're coming up with a raft of excuses for why other people might find it alright - but not one of those 'excuses' is turning up anywhere among those who you are disagreeing with.

What the fuck are you going on about.

There's a difference. Rape victims don't have a choice in the matter. These guys did, and chose to be blackmailed over something so trivial as having someone post naked pictures that they had proven they were willing to share.

Willing to share with one person not the entire world, there is a difference. And yes if you are forced to commit a sexual act against your will it is still rape and considering some of these were underage it is also sex with a minor.

Well, if we are to take the words of a fictional moron as gospel, then since everyone has done at least one stupid thing in their life, everybody on earth is stupid, and calling any one person stupid is as meaningless and redundant as calling them a human being.

I am in complete agreement with all of the bolded above.

Okay. At this point, then, I think we just have to agree to disagree slightly - I agree that going through life with "you're all fuckheads" as a default attitude may be the safest way to live, but it's a damned depressing one, and I would never think someone was "stupid" for being rather more trusting and optimistic. Like I said before: naive, maybe (which, after all, one would rather expect teenagers to be) - stupid, no.

Personally, I just tend to be extremely guarded, and I was raised as such, seeing as my immediate family ((my father, mother and myself)) were always on our own. We really couldn't afford any major mess ups. Perhaps that gives me a differing view on the line between naive and stupid?

I think we just have different philosophies on what constitutes stupidity, and as long as we're in agreement that what may or may not have been stupid behavior on the part of the victims in no way justifies what this asshole did, then I'm happy to leave it at that.

I don't think anyone's really been in opposition to that. We've stated it a bunch of times that none of what transpired absolves the 18 y.o. of any guilt whatsoever.

Willing to share with one person not the entire world, there is a difference. And yes if you are forced to commit a sexual act against your will it is still rape and considering some of these were underage it is also sex with a minor.

Where was the "forced" aspect? This is what I don't get.

Asshole: "Do [sexual favor] to me or these photos go on the internet/around school/etc...."

Kid: "No."

*Kid then goes to parents.*

OR

*Pictures go on internet, the crap blows over in a few weeks, a couple of months at best.*

Where was the "forced" aspect? This is what I don't get.

Asshole: "Do [sexual favor] to me or these photos go on the internet/around school/etc...."

Kid: "No."

*Kid then goes to parents.*

OR

*Pictures go on internet, the crap blows over in a few weeks, a couple of months at best.*

Where was the forced bit in this secnario

Random stranger: Let me fuck you or I shoot you

Woman: No

*Woman then gets shot*

OR

*Woman gets raped anyway doesn't matter it was her own stupid fault for allowing herself to get into that situation*

And if you think that 15 year olds really want to put up with shit for months on end or that you think it will blow over you are pretty mistaken.

Regardless whether you want to use the word forced or coerced or blackmailed it was still wrong and the kids are still victim's of crimes, why is it hard for people to understand this?

I don't think anyone's really been in opposition to that. We've stated it a bunch of times that none of what transpired absolves the 18 y.o. of any guilt whatsoever.

Well, sort of. The problem comes when one argues that the victims are also to blame, even a little bit, because it necessarily implies that it wasn't ALL the asshole's fault - and given the truly scary number of people out there who honestly believe things like "it isn't really rape if she was drunk" or "it isn't really rape if a girl does it to a guy" or "it isn't really rape if she flirted with the guy earlier," as soon as one starts removing any of the blame from the perpetrator, it's a very easy slide into "he was asking for it" territory. I think a fair number of people in here, especially in the first few pages, were either being smart-asses or simply expressed themselves poorly. "Idiots," "this is funny," "We don't call that 'victim', down our way..." "Haha! That's hilarious," "The terminally stupid get duped, make prize fools of themselves, and this is supposed to elicit sympathy?" and "Stupidity is its own Reward," and your own "these 'kids' can't be called 100% victims, and they don't deserve a whole lot of sympathy, and they're not fully "innocent" themselves" don't exactly communicate "Wow, what that guy did was really, really wrong, and his own damn fault, not that of his victims" to me.

Where was the "forced" aspect? This is what I don't get.

Asshole: "Do [sexual favor] to me or these photos go on the internet/around school/etc...."

Kid: "No."

*Kid then goes to parents.*

OR

*Pictures go on internet, the crap blows over in a few weeks, a couple of months at best.*

We can use the word "coerced" instead if you like, though I don't see that it makes a great deal of difference. It amounts to the same thing. Whether it's "suck my dick or I'll fire you," "suck my dick or I'll divorce you," "suck my dick or I'll kill your family," or "suck my dick or I'll publicly humiliate you," when you coerce someone into sexual activity, that is generally considered rape.

Then someone else surely can. It should be rather inevitable, in fact. It should be so inevitable that I must be stupid in order to not expect it.

I'm pretty sure they don't go around and look at every single picture sent by anyone to anyone else over the internet.

You're forgetting motivation. If I thought I could use the picture of the cat to coerce you into doing something I want you to do, I would try a lot harder to find it.

That depends on the party, but that's a mistake anyone can make. Particularly when drinking. Doing so doesn't however translate to stupidity, or deserving of whatever ills come.

No one deserves rape.

That said, how many times have I heard about watching your drink at a party? Watching your drink is smart. The opposite, then, is stupid.

Not giving people you don't know pictures of yourself naked knowing how important it is to you that no one else see those pictures is smart...

I was being facetious with the "a bit stupid" remark. Thought that was kind of obvious since yes, my point is doing something stupid doesn't make you stupid.

You assume I wasn't being facetious?

Wow....... :|




Males being sexually abused or victimized is supposed to be funny. Hee hee.

It's also why so much prison rape goes unreported, unprevented, unnoticed, and is even held up by some people as if it was a legitimate and just aspect of punishment.

Frankly it's disgusting as fuck and stems from an immature, homophobic mindset where if a guy gets sexually abused, it must mean he's weak or gay or otherwise 'deserved it.' And hey ho, ya get people in this very thread acting like the blackmail victims deserved it.

*spit*
QFT!

That said, how many times have I heard about watching your drink at a party? Watching your drink is smart. The opposite, then, is stupid.

No matter how much you watch your drink there is still the chance that it may be spiked unless you have your eye over it for the entire time (including when the bar keeper is making it) there is still a chance it is spiked. So if it is spiked and someone is raped from it that must mean they were stupid and we should laugh at them for doing it.

You're forgetting motivation. If I thought I could use the picture of the cat to coerce you into doing something I want you to do, I would try a lot harder to find it.

Maybe you could. That cat meant a lot to me...


You assume I wasn't being facetious?

Well, yes. I have the patent on facetiousness. You might be in violation of copyright law.

No matter how much you watch your drink there is still the chance that it may be spiked unless you have your eye over it for the entire time (including when the bar keeper is making it) there is still a chance it is spiked. So if it is spiked and someone is raped from it that must mean they were stupid and we should laugh at them for doing it.

No one deserves rape.

Context.

Also, I said not watching your drink is stupid. I did not say that having your drink spiked is stupid.

Context.

Maybe you could. That cat meant a lot to me...

No it didn't.

Well, yes. I have the patent on facetiousness. You might be in violation of copyright law.

I'm fairly certain God owns that copyright. He got it when he created the universe.

In this case, we have at least 2 instances where there should have been a "gut feeling" or where common sense should have taken over and where they should've backed out, stopped what they were doing, or consulted with someone a lot more knowledgeable than they.

Wow. Really, wow.

People must take preventative measures on their own to avoid situations like these. If I'm traveling into downtown Harrisburg, near where I live, I'm not going there in my shortest skirt and any of my cleavage-bearing shirts. Why? It's up-ing the risk factor. By sending such pictures, that's what these kids did: the up-ed the risk factor.

Aside from the fact that most rapes aren't committed under these circumstances. But, yes, please, tell us about how we should all have perfect common sense, and if we don't, even if we're teenagers, we deserve to be raped.

Yes, someone should kick their ass. Then I guarantee that they wouldn't end up like this again, or they'd at least learn to think before they act.

"Raped? How, when? Wait, you went to a party wearing THAT? I'm going to beat the crap out of you, that'll teach you to do something dumb and get sexually assaulted!"

Where was the "forced" aspect? This is what I don't get.

Asshole: "Do [sexual favor] to me or these photos go on the internet/around school/etc...."

Kid: "No."

*Kid then goes to parents.*

OR

*Pictures go on internet, the crap blows over in a few weeks, a couple of months at best.*

Okay. Here we go. This is me trying NOT to be hostile.

Do you have any idea how often child molesters use this kind of logic to coerce minors into sex? I mean, in the "real world" where they know their victims--and yes, 15 year olds are children, and they are molested. They are molested by people who exploit their naivete and inexperience by saying things that a reasonable adult might, might understand as illogical in order to get them in a panic, in order to get them to abandon rationality. I am not saying the person who blackmailed these kids was one of them; I don't know the situation. But I know people who have been exploited with FAR less "blackmail" material, people who shared perhaps a single personal story or two and suddenly found that used as a weapon--"do this or I'll tell your mom". I know they're teenagers, but we have a legal age of majority for a REASON. Children are not always rational and they are not always prepared. To view this as anything but a grievous crime against them is sickening to me.

Okay. Here we go. This is me trying NOT to be hostile.

Do you have any idea how often child molesters use this kind of logic to coerce minors into sex? I mean, in the "real world" where they know their victims--and yes, 15 year olds are children, and they are molested. They are molested by people who exploit their naivete and inexperience by saying things that a reasonable adult might, might understand as illogical in order to get them in a panic, in order to get them to abandon rationality. I am not saying the person who blackmailed these kids was one of them; I don't know the situation. But I know people who have been exploited with FAR less "blackmail" material, people who shared perhaps a single personal story or two and suddenly found that used as a weapon--"do this or I'll tell your mom". I know they're teenagers, but we have a legal age of majority for a REASON. Children are not always rational and they are not always prepared. To view this as anything but a grievous crime against them is sickening to me.

...I like you.

Where was the "forced" aspect? This is what I don't get.

It doesn't matter what the threat was. What matters is not whether it was "objectively" trivial (even if such a judgment could be made), but how it was subjectively taken by the victims.

They felt coerced, and that was the intent of the blackmailer. That's what matters. That's why it was sex attained through coercion, that is, rape.

People really are stupid.

Circumstances. But, yes, please, tell us about how we should all have perfect common sense, and if we don't, even if we're teenagers, we deserve to be raped.


No one is trivialising rape, and no one has said anything about deserving to be raped - except for a few people that keep trying to pin THAT argument on a few other people.

It's a strawman, at best, and just plain dishonest, at worst.

No one is trivialising rape, and no one has said anything about deserving to be raped - except for a few people that keep trying to pin THAT argument on a few other people.

It's a strawman, at best, and just plain dishonest, at worst.

No, it's not a strawman. It's what some of you are actually saying. Do you really not think your argument through?

No one is trivialising rape, and no one has said anything about deserving to be raped - except for a few people that keep trying to pin THAT argument on a few other people.

It's a strawman, at best, and just plain dishonest, at worst.

Contrary to what many people are saying, it is possible for a victims prior actions to lead them to this sort of situation. In this case, we have at least 2 instances where there should have been a "gut feeling" or where common sense should have taken over and where they should've backed out, stopped what they were doing, or consulted with someone a lot more knowledgeable than they.

...

Yes, someone should kick their ass. Then I guarantee that they wouldn't end up like this again, or they'd at least learn to think before they act.

No one "deserves" to be raped, they should just have better common sense than to be in that situation, and beating them up would effectively teach them not to get raped again.

No one is trivialising rape, and no one has said anything about deserving to be raped - except for a few people that keep trying to pin THAT argument on a few other people.

It's a strawman, at best, and just plain dishonest, at worst.

Agreed. I am sick of people here thinking I have implied that people "deserve to be raped."

Nowhere have I said this, implied this, suggested this, or hinted at this. Saying that their actions led to this situation, and holding the opinion that, even at fifteen, there should be some shred, even if it's just forming, of sense that says "something's wrong here...," isn't wrong or implying that "they deserved this."

You can keep throwing the argument that "no one deserves to be raped" around all you want. You're not going to find opposition to that statement, and no one will let you continue to say that either Grave or myself are implying this.

But, perhaps my arguments come from a skewed source. According to who I've talked to about this, my family life was most likely highly abnormal. I had quite open lines of communication with my parents. I was taught that if anything seemed out of the ordinary to just come to my parents to talk it out. Usually, if I had dug myself a hole, confronting my parents about it was much better than letting it progress on my own, seeing as they had the world-experience to figure it out and I didn't. Did my dad call me a "dumbass" a couple of times? Sure, cause in retrospect, things I did were pretty stupid. But I gained a good grasp on common sense because I started learning patterns of what was "stupid" and what made sense.

((Perhaps that was what I've been trying to spit out by my earlier statements. I wasn't saying "kick their asses so they don't get raped again," of course not. But if you drill into their heads what is sensible, and what is insensible behavior, eventually they'll see patterns and learn to avoid situations, like this one.))

But I do want to ask another question, because I'm not sure if this has been covered, and I want to hear your opinions on this. Where were the parents during these events? The events must've progressed over a period of at least weeks, if not a month or more. Is it really becoming so abnormal for parents to take an active interest in their teens' lives? I know my folks kept a pretty good tab on me. They gave me an "illusion of privacy and freedom," but I know now that they really knew what was going on all the time. Even if it's as simple as asking, or as complex as actually logging onto their kids' facebook page, shouldn't there have been some sort of parental involvement that could've prevented some of this?

Okay. Here we go. This is me trying NOT to be hostile.

Do you have any idea how often child molesters use this kind of logic to coerce minors into sex? I mean, in the "real world" where they know their victims--and yes, 15 year olds are children, and they are molested. They are molested by people who exploit their naivete and inexperience by saying things that a reasonable adult might, might understand as illogical in order to get them in a panic, in order to get them to abandon rationality. I am not saying the person who blackmailed these kids was one of them; I don't know the situation. But I know people who have been exploited with FAR less "blackmail" material, people who shared perhaps a single personal story or two and suddenly found that used as a weapon--"do this or I'll tell your mom". I know they're teenagers, but we have a legal age of majority for a REASON. Children are not always rational and they are not always prepared. To view this as anything but a grievous crime against them is sickening to me.

I'm sorry, I really must apologize. Growing up, I always knew that just confronting the powers that be about what had happened/what I'd done was much better/easier than letting it build up and then spiral out of control. My motto was "when in doubt, ask my parents." I guess it's because of this, I have a hard time seeing from this viewpoint that you've presented.

I'm sorry, I really must apologize. Growing up, I always knew that just confronting the powers that be about what had happened/what I'd done was much better/easier than letting it build up and then spiral out of control. My motto was "when in doubt, ask my parents." I guess it's because of this, I have a hard time seeing from this viewpoint that you've presented.

I can understand that, and I appreciate you addressing my post and clarifying your position. I wish everyone had supportive parents that they knew they could go to in times of trouble or doubt. My parents have always been very understanding and empathic, and I know I could have talked to them if a situation like this came up, but I know too many people who would have been blamed or even ignored. I've known people whose parents didn't believe them when they told them they'd been sexually abused--who even BLAMED them for "causing trouble".

It's a sad world when there are predators who take advantage of children and parents who don't protect them.

I can understand that, and I appreciate you addressing my post and clarifying your position. I wish everyone had supportive parents that they knew they could go to in times of trouble or doubt. My parents have always been very understanding and empathic, and I know I could have talked to them if a situation like this came up, but I know too many people who would have been blamed or even ignored. I've known people whose parents didn't believe them when they told them they'd been sexually abused--who even BLAMED them for "causing trouble".

It's a sad world when there are predators who take advantage of children and parents who don't protect them.

The bolded part, I'd like to address that.

To those of you who know how I post ((from way back in the day)) you'll know that I have a very hard time figuring out what I'm trying to say, and I'll spend 5 pages looking like an idiot.

I guess this is what people have thought my "kick their ass" and "dumbass" lines referred to. This is my fault, I used most probably the wrong lines. :$ And I'll go ahead and blame my dad for this, cause his version of "kicking ass" was pretty much just a very "loud" lecture. :p Loud lectures taught me right from wrong and what is shady and what is legit.

So I apologize for the epic proportions of confusion. You can still crucify me if you want, but at least I figured out why everyone was taking everything I said the wrong way. /facepalm