Do not advocate serving Belgian beers in beer glasses that weren’t specifically designed for those beers. To find out what these rules mean exactly , please read more about them in the wiki. Check out the wiki for more related subreddits! Looking to move to Belgium? Check out our Belgian Survival Guide for what you need to know.
Interested in doing an AMA? Contact us! Honderden Vlaamse meisjes slachtoffer van netwerk in naaktfoto’s en -filmpjes hln. De leden gebruiken er ook een eigen taaltje. In before hundreds of concerned mothers ask their child “zitte gij toch nie op diene ‘discord’? Wie had dat gedacht”. Also visiting that discord would be equal to visiting child porn. I see you haven’t graduated from the Meme History University yet. How embarrassing, how embarrassing.
IIRC it’s a common misconception to think that because Pi is infinite, every possible imaginable piece of information should be in there. The fact that it’s infinite, doesn’t mean that every imaginable combination of numbers will occur within it. While true, it’s also suspected that Pi is “normal”, which would indeed mean that every finite piece of information occurs with the same frequency, which in particular means that every imaginable combination of numbers should occur.
It’s not just infinite, it’s an irrational number, and it’s expected to be a normal number, but it’s true that that hasn’t been proven yet. Describing at what position it starts likely involves writing down a number that’s petabytes large though. Well, actually I haven’t done my research and now I’m wondering if a gigabyte long film will on average take a gigabyte to have its position described, or if it takes way more than that as I intuitively thought and if so, how much more.
Not using Knuth’s notation Beware of the rabbit hole, but if you decide to go down it, check out Graham’s number. No, that still won’t work in general. The start position of the digit would essentially be a random number, and there’s no reliable way to compress a random number. There’s actually a rather elegant and very short mathematical proof for the fact that you can’t find an algorithm which compresses every number into a smaller size.
Proof is left as a exercise to the reader :. There’s a vast difference between a topless selfie of a 16 yo and DP’ing vid a 7 yo while s he’s doped up. But it seems you think they’re both the same. You’re technically correct that no, it’s not the same, but we’re still talking about kids here regardless and it shouldn’t matter. And if you don’t want me to chalk you up as some apologist justifying looking at pics of naked underage girls, write some kind of disclaimer.
Get ur head out of ur ass bro. A 18 yo looking at pics of a 16 yo shouldn’t be a jail-worthy crime. Forcing said 16 yo to take the pics and blackmailing her should be. Yet all you seem to focus on is him looking at the pics. You are also completely missing the point. An 18 year old receiving nudes from his girlfriend with consent is not classified as child porn.
A kid cannot give consent. Child porn is child porn regardless of consent. To the law it doesn’t matter if you are a willing participant or not. And please, stop trying to insinuate that I’m a pedo just because my point of view differs from yours. So actually you’re saying it’s the same with cannabis. Prosecute the dealer, not the user. The only difference is that the product that is traded is different, cannabis doesn’t have feelings.
Is unable to get mentally unstable, doesn’t have it’s privacy violated It’s socially reprehensible behaviour and could be punishable by law. It’s mainly about distributing, but if you’re just a ‘user’ you know how far away you are from illegal activity. How exactly is it child porn? When a 16yo takes a selfie and sends it to her 17yo bf. This ain’t a bunch of 40 yo’s sharing buttfuck pics of 7 yo’s.
This be young adolescents sharing pics of girls of mostly same age brackets. Not the fact that an 18 yo is looking at pics of a 16 yo. Nothing in your original statement said anything about this niche situation you’re describing now. If this is the specific circumstance you meant, then maybe you shouldn’t have made a sweeping statement about looking at stolen pictures of topless 16 year olds.
Nothing in it didn’t say so either. You’re free to make your own assumptions. And boy did you. That in this case he never should have obtained in the first place because they weren’t initially send to him. But that is probably covered by the ‘it’s her fault of sending them in the first place’ adage for you. An apologist attitude to this sort of thing is a weak attempt to minimize the effects of sexual abuse on minors. Yes, there are differences between a child getting abused and a teenager sending nudes.
We all know that. But it’s a slippery slope and that’s why we have “arbitrary” age definitions like these. Yeah, there might be picture of 16 year olds who were fully aware of the contents of what they were sending or at least so they thought , but there is no doubt in my mind you would be able to find 15, 14, 13 year olds on there too.
You can see where this is going. It’s easy to exploit these girls who are still children. You don’t really want to be on the side of “I don’t support child porn, BUT this and this is fine and should not be considered as such”. It doesn’t matter what you think is “fine”. There are also clear definitions about consent that you appear to be forgetting or are unaware of.
Your first example is nonsense because of this little thing we have called age of consent. Age of consent however does not apply anymore when those pictures are shared without consent. You’re the only person in this whole thread going on a crusade against where the current line is drawn for child pornography. Not on a crusade. Just pointing out that you’re focusing on the wrong thing. I’d hate to see my 19 yo son being jailed cuz he was flagged by Facebook for having seen a naked selfie of his 17 yo GF.
In your world that would be a totally justified thing to do to him. For example in the US you face lifetime imprisonment for having a few pictures of topless 16 year olds on your computer. Kids of all age aren’t off limits. Age of consent in Belgium is Means you can fuck but not look? Get real. Looking at the pics ain’t the issue we should be handling. The criminal behavior in getting them, handling them, etc should be something to look into.
You can look with consent. Those girls didn’t gave thein consent to have their pics distributed on the Internet. I see you might be confused as to what is and isn’t prohibited under Belgian law. As a 16 year old currently working on child pornography for school, I think I may be of help. Looking at something in this case equals possession, and it doesn’t mean you have to download, print or manipulate as in photoshop the image or video.
The goal of lawmakers is to hurt the market of child porn this way by punishing the consumer. Doing so in a group is an aggravating circumstance. Child porn includes porn with real children, porn with a person that resembles a child but is actually an adult, porn with a fictional child that resembles a “realistic” child and computer-manipulated images of real, apparent or fictional children.
We had quite a chuckle pondering over how VTM’s journalists accidentally stumbled upon a porn network. Precisely, I must be able to very specifically block these sites so random pop-ups don’t send me there, nor my kids! So tell me which sites precisely we are speaking of here? I know, was just a joke. However it becomes creepy when the joke is repeated twice and with a certain intent. I’m a fan of shock humor and offensive jokes at the right time and right place of course , but phrasing matters.
It’s also a reference to it’s always sunny in philadelphia. Oooh that’s why my mum was looking at me strangely when I mentioned writing to people on discord! This is maybe a harsh and unpopular opinion, but they shouldn’t send pics of themselves if they don’t want it on the internet.
Zaterdag 20st, November 10:43:51 Am
|48 jaar vrouw, Weegschalen|
|Vrienden: praveen_kapu, CC4Ryder|
|Stuur een bericht|