Why do you guys choose to support a platform that enables child pornagraphy (CP or cheese pizza, if you will)? You try to say it's for your anonymity, but we all know why you're there. You claim it's to protect yourself and your identity from the government and Trump and the FBI, CIA, and NSA, but what are you hiding? What terrorist plans are you plotting? Are you buying illegal drugs? You may think you're keeping yourself anonymous with your edgy opinions and viewpoints about how America should be Anarcho-Communist and how Trump should be assassinated, but you're only enabling CP distributors. Not only is the Tor network making it easy for CP distributors to sell and provide their illegal content (regardless if it was legal where it was filmed), and you are effectively keeping them hidden, so they can continue doing those heinous crimes. If you use and support Tor, you support the enablement of CP. Plain and simple.
Tor Enables CP
Other urls found in this thread:
wikileaks.org
telegraph.co.uk
gizmodo.com
tandfonline.com
twitter.com
low quality bait
I agree tbqh
You say it's bait but yet provide no argument.
If you use tor you make it slower for people downloading CP. Checkmate, atheists.
Good, I'm glad.
If you don't use Tor at all you stop providing them the bandwidth they need to continue the spread of CP.
What the fuck are you talking about
That's not how Tor works
Careful not to cut yourself on all that edge there lad.
You really think tor being shut down won't cause a group of autists to make a replacement? Pandora box can never be closed my friend.
Child Pornagraphy and how/why Tor enables it
Yes it is. It's a P2P network, so when you're on it, you're providing them bandwidth.
shutting down Tor wouldn't stop child porn, they'd just move on to some other platform. why don't we just shut down the internet?
Okay.
And what platform would that be? Tor is the only one.
Why haven't they done so already? It's because they can't. The ones who can are like this.
money enables crime
shall we ban that too?
Did you just make these pictures today?
Yes.
> shut down the internet
Then it will be distributed offline. Just go for the source - kill all humans.
>Why haven't they done so already?
The mother of invention is need.
>61861464(OP)(You)(Faggot)
>If you use and support Tor, you support the enablement of CP
What if I don't care about others? All of this revolves around me feeling good about helping stop people from fapping to naked minors.
This is bait, i bet.
It's easy to tell
>And what platform would that be? Tor is the only one.
like I2P? what, do you really think that shutting down Tor is going to stop people from trying to get CP?
"They'd just move on to some other platform" is truly the attitude of indifference. I hope you go to hell.
These pictures probably have CP hidden in them lol
why are you all replying to this bait
Slow day at the office, NSA operator?
i can make one real quick
This argument is almost on the level of "Cameras enable production of child porn, ban cameras"
No one needs a platform to distribute CP
So you support the distribution and creation of CP?
Tor allows people to get is safe and securely. If it wasn't that way they would have been caught.
You seem mad some people don't like the enablement of CP
The CIA supports spreading SeaPea
Welcome to Sup Forums
Where you dropped on your head as a baby? Tor clients are not Tor nodes.
>inb4 i2p
most of the trackers there actually have no child porn, are moderated, and are pretty vanilla, not to mention the fact that i2p isn't inherently censorship-proof in the way the freenet is, so you may not necessarily be able to access eepsites that do distribute child porn. except for imule. those guys do not fuck around when it comes to cp.
ikr
having hosted a node, I can assure you that the vast majority of tor users are actually just middle eastern people who want to browse FaceBook and people who just want to buy pot. All cp proliferation sites on tor, at this point, are literally run by the FBI or some other government entity.
But, pretending like tor is secure for a second, that small minority is a necessary sacrifice in order to exercise the sort of merits an anonymizing service like tor provides.
And by that same logic, Microsoft should be held responsible for the fact that most child pornographers edit and distribute their movies in Windows. And ISPs should be responsible for all the piracy that's going on over their networks.
Nice trips. Again, not really. They're pretty much all honeypots.
Childrens enable production of child porn, we should ban childrens
i'm not indifferent, you're just delusional. again, let's just fucking shut down the entire internet because child porn can be distributed through it.
that's funny considering that months ago there were thousands of threads on Sup Forums about Tor being compromised by the CIA. or are you new here?
Agreed! Here here!
Let's ban all children! I've had enough of their sticky fingers and bad breath and screaming all the time for no reason.
That's a legislature I can get behind.
False equivalency.
More users mean more secure. CP might hide actual leaks.
Because the principal of restricting things because some people might misuse it causing minor problems is flawed.
Tor is a great place to spread information safe from being retaliated against, allows those in states to access others opinions, protects one from the government and advertising companies spying on innocent civilians.
It's a great tool to prevent censorship of all kinds, plus "darknets" aren't restricted to onion domains
>shut down the internet
"I'm just gonna use this extreme action to create a false equivalence in an attempt to make it seem like your own opinion is as extreme and silly as this one"
Not very smart, are you?
>TOR is the only one
Nice try lad. There's even cp on the clearnet.
>false equivalency
You keep saying that but have yet to explain why.
The vast majority of tor traffic is literally botnets, cp, and drugs. Don't try to make it seem as though, normal people care about being anonymous online
don't whine to me about false equivalency when you're equating an entire network to a child porn haven.
>You need to explain how retarded I am to me or else I'm right
>(not true, by the way)
Fallacy fallacy.
Simply shouting "FALLACY" doesn't disprove his point.
How is it false equivalence?
What's the point of even having this discussion if you're not even willing to persuade the other party?
Multiple studies show that the majority of tor traffic is used for illegal purposes
We don't need to ban children. Just the sexy ones.
They have a purpose of existing due to existing users. If user base drops, so do the nodes.
So the sacrifice is worth the CP. You support the enablement of distribution of CP.
Wow lad what a great argument.
False equivalency
So you support the enablement of safe and secure CP being distributed?
And that is found a lot easier and can be apprehended because they're not anonymous like they are on the Tor network.
This is exactly what I'm talking about
This 2bh
>(is true, by the way)
>You need to explain how retarded I am to me or else I'm right
Persuade to you that Tor inherently enables anonymous safe and secure distribution of child pornagraphy?
Here's another gizmodo.com
I simply refuse to believe this isnt a part of a misinformation campaign
Where's the misinformation? Everything stated is simply fact.
Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.
When you say, ‘I have nothing to hide,’ you’re saying, ‘I don’t care about this right.’ You’re saying, ‘I don’t have this right, because I’ve got to the point where I have to justify it.’ The way rights work is, the government has to justify its intrusion into your rights.
In any case, banning a tool because it may be abused is the wrong way to go about solving it. If you want to play that game, you should first and foremost try to get everyone to stop using cars altogether. They're infinitely more dangerous to children than any pedo jerking it in front of a computer screen.
why so many finances pages
are they doing inside trading or some shit?
In other news:
Cars enable traffic accidents
Knifes enable stabbing deaths
Water enables drowning
Money enables swindling
Elephants enables stampede deaths
Household electricity enables electrocution
Why are cars, knifes, money, accessible electricity and water not banned yet, and why are elephants not extinct yet‽ If you support the following above, you support the harm and deaths of innocent people. Plain and simple.
>implying i care if people distribute cp on it
Who said I don't care about privacy? I care about the distribution of child pornagraphy. So you support the distribution of child pornagraphy and think it's actually better than driving?
False equivalencies
So you support it then.
I wonder who sponsored this thread
>if user base drops, so do the nodes
Except the CP users will use far higher bandwidth. Many nodes operators would consider it worthwhile if the usage is high, which is not fully dependent on the actual number of users.
test
>So you support it then.
wow you're quick to jump to other fallacies even though you include "false equivalencies" in every post
>tells others they are using fallacies
>naively uses a plethora
Get out underage retard.
>YOU LIKE TOR SO YOU MUST LIKE CP
Strawman
>you need to prove it else I'm right
Shifting the burden of proof.
I pointed out you used a fallacy, I never said you were incorrect, and simply asked you to expand on your accusation.
>I CLAIM YOU USED A FALLACY. THEREFORE I CAN DISREGARD YOU.
Fallacy fallacy.
Why I don't refute you're central point?
You have no substance to the argument and attack the presentation or arguer directly. You've not claimed anything but saying tor is bad because there's cp. Therefore tor should be banned. You don't listen to the opposition and promptly dismiss any benefits tor has.
Essentially it just cherry pick examples, and blatantly ignoring the central points of the opposition.
>inb4 I didn't directly refute tor either way
You're right, and I told you why. The point's moot on you.
this
Google TM
supporting any kind of personal privacy can also "support" CP
privacy isn't the problem, though
Your original argument is also a false equivalency, and more importantly a sweeping statement riddled with overgeneralization. It is only valid if TOR is solely used/designed for CP, which is false. Just because TOR can access CP doesn't mean all users of TOR support CP. No point pot calling kettle black here.
That's a false equivalency in of itself. First off, I support freedom. Just because there may be some people who abuse Tor and use it to distribute child pornography, doesn't mean my personal (and legal) use of it enables it, just as how me buying and driving a car on the road enables other folk running over children in the streets.
You want tor banned, but you don't want cars banned. What I am saying is you're being a hypocrite. And a pretty inefficient one at that. You should ban cars if you want to protect the children. Cars kill vastly more children than Tor does.
How are they false equivalences?
They're both tools, and some misuse them or use them in a way you don't like.
Cameras record child porn
Is that close enough for you?
They are not false equivalences.
Psssst cp doesn't even directly hurt children
Stay mad moralCommieFag
>paper can be used to distribute CP
>therefore let's not support paper
this is how retarded you are
Do you want to ban video cameras too? It's what the pedos use to make CP, you know.
You're supporting child porn by owning or using video cameras! Why do you hate children? Are you a pedo???
No one.
Higher bandwidth means more money to have to spend
Not caring about it is the same as supporting it.
Never said if you like Tor you must like CP, only that if you use Tor you enable the distribution of CP. We've provided proof, now argue against it.
You can't refute my point so you claim to choose not to.
>muh privacy
Privacy isn't the problem, it's how it's implemented that is because it enables the distribution of CP.
I simply stated fact.
There's no point to use Tor if what you do is legal. And we're not talking about killing, we're talking about the distribution of CP.
False equivalency again.
Wow so you think CP is okay.
>using that as your argument
this is how retarded you are
False equivalency
>Banana is a fruit
>Thus all fruits are bananas
Excellent argument, thanks for enlightening us with this undebatable truth.
ITT: a single retard gets himself into an argument he had no prayer of winning due to sheer mental retardation, and then attempts to spam "false equivalency" for 100 posts in a sad attempt to save face. It fails horribly.
Just got here. Have I pretty much got it right?
False equivalency yet again.
I wonder what OP thinks about those higher up child traffickers in wikileaks.
if we thought like this we would need to remove the internet, my friend
do you want to ban all video surveillance from banks? if so you make it harder to catch criminals.
>being against CP is mental retardation
Wew lad.
They are disgusting and horrible human beings who deserve to be killed.
So, you admit that your argument is a false equivalency? Oh that's nice.
just because I can use a gun to blow your head off doesn't mean I will
just because tor can be used for CP doesn't mean everyone will. Most people using it just would like some privacy on the internet. These days privacy on the internet is hard to come by.
Ealse Fquivalency.
Why use electricity if it hurts people when they touch it?
>Privacy isn't the problem, it's how it's implemented that is because it enables the distribution of CP.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you have privacy and are truly anonymous (and therefore distribute CP without suffering repercussions, if you so wish), or you do not have privacy because there is a way to trace it back to you.
You can't have both.
But timely.
>There’s a new bill in Congress that would threaten your right to free expression online. If that weren’t enough, it could also put small Internet businesses in danger of catastrophic litigation.
>Don’t let its name fool you: the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA, S. 1693) wouldn’t help punish sex traffickers. What the bill would do is expose any person, organization, platform, or business that hosts third-party content on the Internet to the risk of overwhelming criminal and civil liability if sex traffickers use their services. For small Internet businesses, that could be fatal: with the possibility of devastating litigation costs hanging over their heads, we think that many entrepreneurs and investors will be deterred from building new businesses online.
>Make no mistake: sex trafficking is a real, horrible problem. This bill is not the way to address it. Lawmakers should think twice before passing a disastrous law and endangering free expression and innovation.
>tor is bad cause cp
Wew lad.
Although I suppose the solution to all this is fairly simple. Since CP didn't exist until Tor did, we should just get rid of Tor. No more Tor, no more CP. Just like in the days before Tor, the Internet, cameras, and paper. Better, simpler times with no child porn anywhere.
Amirite?
not an argument
>Not caring about it is the same as supporting it.
What kind of drugs are you on, kid?
>False equivalency
Prove it.
he's on the most dangerous one
autism
You mean the Democrat donors who tried to frame Assange?
There's no reason not to kill Democrats anymore. Proofs me wrong.
not an argument
>container with fruit and some packages of drugs
>but don't investigate this container or stop it, because:
>hurr drugs are a shipment
>not all shipments are drugs
>False equivalency
This is you.
silencers are illegal
Mallacy mallacy.
Omfg, although you're either a troll or an OSINT gov contractor trying to spread disinformation against Tor. I gotta give it to you, I fucking laughed my ass off with those memes. Its sad that most of Tor devs and users are like that.
Plebs pedos on the internet is not a problem compared to big ones.