First of all: I ABSOLUTELY DON'T LIKE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY - IT'S DISGUSTING!
Says the guy who up voted an image of an under 18 year old girl standing in a thong on a NSFW post titled "Helping Daddy with Dinner"
You are just mad that you got caught. This entire post is just you wanted to deflect blame from yourself for your own actions. I didn't make your account up vote Child Porn, you did. Therefore endorsing it and helping it earn money, granting monetary rewards for someone posting a young underage girl in a thong in a NSFW post. Sick disgusting behavior. You should have flagged it, but you clearly liked it and hit up vote, and now that you have been caught you feel embarrassed.
You should have written a post about how you have a problem that you are going to deal with. You need to seek professional help.
How do you think the girl in that photo feels? How do you think her father or her family feels knowing her image of her underage in a thong is out on the internet being seen and helped spread by people like you?
Problem is you only care about yourself, not one iota of an apology to the young girl whose image you up voted.
So everybody can see.
This is being called child porn ...
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.
https://steemit.com/photography/@iamgod/helping-daddy-with-dinner
Do you realize how extreme it is to accuse someone of being part of a paedophile ring for upvoting that post?
Third party readers, please view the post. It is not child pornography. The girl is clothed, and it's not clear what age she is.
No. I don't feel ashamed. What I upvoted was not child pornographie. I didn't flag it because it wasn't. I didn't see the other posts. So what do you want from me? I'm not pedophile or sick. You are the one telling me and it pisses me off. You've destroyed my profile and made money out of lies. Be proud of that if you want. But I'm out. Bye.
He is justified to make such assumptions because of the combination of the "weird" picture caption "Helping Daddy with Dinner"... Good for you that you have cleared it up stating that:
... so probably you are both right and both wrong at the same time...
try to judge him taking you out from the equation and observe it as a 3rd party, and then you will realize that he has good intentions...
He is not justified, you can find far more explicit content young looking girls and the same sort of language in perfectly legal porn. That porn is right there on Steemit why don't you go take a look? Or maybe google the words teen and daddy and see if you think all the results that appear in google are all illegal child porn as well
May I suggest you be responsible and do a little research if you're going to defend life destroying accusations.
Unless you want to argue that the law should be changed, but that rather changes the context when you call someone a pedophie and they know just how broadly you use that word
I hope btw that you realise that even if the images were underage and technically met the conditions of being childporn (they do not.) it STILL doesn't mean someone is a pedophile. Pedophilia is attraction to PREpubescent sex characteristics. Calling someone this is far more serious and implies far more than an image of a girl slightly below 18 and so misleads people who assume they're not being lied to.
Oh, and there were image actually from a legal porn site. Titan knows this, he's been shown, he says somehow it doesn't matter and still calls it child porn. He backpeddles with no shame.
Thank you edb1984! You're support is just amazing. The argument you brought is really important. Biologically is a girl a woman once she has her menstruation since she can birth children then. (around 13 to 15 I think - I'm not sure) In the history there are a lot a lot of examples where kings would take wifes who are in that age range. I don't support that - I just want to mention it because everything we know is made by society and for example in Germany is a different law than in the US - in Germany children can have sex with other children once they are 14. Adults having sex with under 14 is extremely illegal (that's good) and under 16 is also illegal as far as I know - over 16-18 is a greyzone I think.
And for humans to be attracted to a body of a 16 to 18 year old woman who could be easily 18 or 20+ is similar to a woman who is 24 but looks 16. My girlfriend for example is 28+ but people often think she is under 18. That's not the reason she is my girlfriend of course haha - it's because that I love her.
I just said he is justified to make the assumption that the picture with the combination of the caption refers to Child Porn... NOT that the upvoters of course are pedophile...