Yes, I am calling that child porn. How do you know the girl is over 18? To me the title and the image both depict a girl that is underage. Posting that again on my blog is despicable.
Because it says "daddy"?? There are creeps who call themselves daddy in relation to a sex partner. Do you really think a girl would actually walk around with her ass cheeks showing to her real father??? I mean that would be creepy! Still, this is just a photo. The caption may have nothing to do with reality. And it's more likely that the word "daddy" in this case means man of the house. Not father.
The girl looks very underage to me, and it is not the only post by @IamGod of underage women, there are plenty. This photo is one of many examples on that blog.
For example, this other one and this comment:
The other two images @IamGod posted that I exposed were of clearly underage girls topless with their nipples showing, or is that not child porn? Why are you not showing those and attacking me over 1 post that you cannot prove I am wrong about?
I explained what this thong photo was and to me it is child porn, the image clearly to me depicts an underage girl in a thong, and the poster knew it would be considered pornography so they marked it NSFW. The Daddy reference is letting people attracted to this type of content know it is an underage girl.
I report child trafficking cases, I have seen this type of thing countless times.
@titusfrost The more I read from your comments the more it crystalizes: Your tone is always very agressive to anybody who is not the same opinion than yours and the methodes of argumentation you repeatedly come up with remembers clearly to witchhunt from the middle age.
How easy killing a steemit account within 3 hours because the user simply upvoted a naked girl somebody else has postet. This is witchhunt par excellence. And where does this lead to? BIG BROTHER STEEMIT policed by Dr. Frost ?
Maybe you are the one who needs medical help. maybe you suffer from delusion and cognitive dissonance as it seems in my diagnosis so far. I mean no joke, maybe you are the one in need for medical help. Or maybe you are just an attention whore on stereoids. if so calm down man. It is disgusting to see how easy it is to witchhunt for a simple like on a not even naked girl ! I am strongly against any kind of childpornography, but to come up with paedo-ring in this specific constellation is far beyond ridicolous. I guess someone is suffering from cognitive dissonance a lot here.
Before we start throwing around SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS I think it's important to get something clear before the torches are lit and pitch fork wielding righteous indignation fully takes over...
Following does not necessarily indicate support, neither in whole orin part.
Following does not necessarily indicate agreement, neither in whole orin part.
Users should not be required to make sure there's no objectionable content in someones posting history before they hit follow.
You are not responsible for the actions of those you follow.
Users gain followers for any number of meaningless impersonal reasons
(following can be automated, following can be calculated, following can be strategic, following can be frivolous)
Even upvoting doesn't necessarily imply anything.
(voting can be automated, voting can be calculated, voting can be strategic, voting can be frivolous)
..and damn I hate pedophiles, i really hate them, I even made Memes exposing them.
(i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,
(ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons
The image I exposed meets the criteria by the legal definition of it.
No I dont believe the post was innocent. When put into context you can clearly see the guy is a pervert. However, one guy upvoting one post means it's taken out of context. I can't assume he's a pervert and nobody can accuse him of being a paedophile for that!
@liondani
I just want to chime in with some reasoning. 1. Absolutely no father would cook dinner with his daughter in their thong. Just not a thing.
The term daddy is a very, very common term for the male in a sexual relationship, especially when he is the bread winner. Hence the term "sugar daddy".
If we take the caption at face value, that would mean it would be written by the girl herself. "Helping daddy with dinner"
Generating a meme takes 2 seconds these days. Anybody could have seen this picture and captioned it this way.
It's just not logical, this is a public site where everyone can see your comments and your upvotes and who you follow. It's not logical to link yourself to something as abhorrent as child pornography on a site like this, where your reputation means literally everything.
Why go through the trouble you know??
This model could be 20, 25 or 30 years old.
If you combine it with the title, yes you could easily "misinterpret" it ...
Yes, I am calling that child porn. How do you know the girl is over 18? To me the title and the image both depict a girl that is underage. Posting that again on my blog is despicable.
Because it says "daddy"?? There are creeps who call themselves daddy in relation to a sex partner. Do you really think a girl would actually walk around with her ass cheeks showing to her real father??? I mean that would be creepy! Still, this is just a photo. The caption may have nothing to do with reality. And it's more likely that the word "daddy" in this case means man of the house. Not father.
The girl looks very underage to me, and it is not the only post by @IamGod of underage women, there are plenty. This photo is one of many examples on that blog.
For example, this other one and this comment:
The other two images @IamGod posted that I exposed were of clearly underage girls topless with their nipples showing, or is that not child porn? Why are you not showing those and attacking me over 1 post that you cannot prove I am wrong about?
I explained what this thong photo was and to me it is child porn, the image clearly to me depicts an underage girl in a thong, and the poster knew it would be considered pornography so they marked it NSFW. The Daddy reference is letting people attracted to this type of content know it is an underage girl.
I report child trafficking cases, I have seen this type of thing countless times.
@titusfrost The more I read from your comments the more it crystalizes: Your tone is always very agressive to anybody who is not the same opinion than yours and the methodes of argumentation you repeatedly come up with remembers clearly to witchhunt from the middle age.
How easy killing a steemit account within 3 hours because the user simply upvoted a naked girl somebody else has postet. This is witchhunt par excellence. And where does this lead to? BIG BROTHER STEEMIT policed by Dr. Frost ?
Maybe you are the one who needs medical help. maybe you suffer from delusion and cognitive dissonance as it seems in my diagnosis so far. I mean no joke, maybe you are the one in need for medical help. Or maybe you are just an attention whore on stereoids. if so calm down man. It is disgusting to see how easy it is to witchhunt for a simple like on a not even naked girl ! I am strongly against any kind of childpornography, but to come up with paedo-ring in this specific constellation is far beyond ridicolous. I guess someone is suffering from cognitive dissonance a lot here.
Before we start throwing around SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS I think it's important to get something clear before the torches are lit and pitch fork wielding righteous indignation fully takes over...
Following does not necessarily indicate support, neither in whole or in part. Following does not necessarily indicate agreement, neither in whole or in part. Users should not be required to make sure there's no objectionable content in someones posting history before they hit follow. You are not responsible for the actions of those you follow. Users gain followers for any number of meaningless impersonal reasons (following can be automated, following can be calculated, following can be strategic, following can be frivolous) Even upvoting doesn't necessarily imply anything. (voting can be automated, voting can be calculated, voting can be strategic, voting can be frivolous)..and damn I hate pedophiles, i really hate them, I even made Memes exposing them.
I love good research - again thank you so much for the support!
You are wrong, read the legal definition of child pornography: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/act/22/section/2/enacted/en/html
The image I exposed meets the criteria by the legal definition of it.
I don't agree. It has absolutely to do with the combination with the caption...
@beanz do you really believe that the caption was innocent ? I am not convinced.
No I dont believe the post was innocent. When put into context you can clearly see the guy is a pervert. However, one guy upvoting one post means it's taken out of context. I can't assume he's a pervert and nobody can accuse him of being a paedophile for that!
I agree on that.
@liondani
I just want to chime in with some reasoning. 1. Absolutely no father would cook dinner with his daughter in their thong. Just not a thing.
Generating a meme takes 2 seconds these days. Anybody could have seen this picture and captioned it this way.
It's just not logical, this is a public site where everyone can see your comments and your upvotes and who you follow. It's not logical to link yourself to something as abhorrent as child pornography on a site like this, where your reputation means literally everything.
Why go through the trouble you know??
I don't blame anybody.I consider it just a stupid mistake to upvote it.