Anonymous ID: 4accb4 Oct. 5, 2025, 1:56 a.m. No.23695013   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>23694977

His dad waited until his preferred wife was 19.

>With a famously roving eye, the man who claimed to have fathered some 43 children plucked Sarah from obscurity at the age of 19 while she was a performer for the uniquely titled Revolutionary Suicide Mechanised Regiment Band of the Ugandan Army. Their lavish wedding in the Ugandan capital, Kampala, cost more than £2m and featured Yasser Arafat as best man.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ugandan-dictator-idi-amin-s-widow-sarah-kyolaba-dies-in-the-uk-aged-59-10322083.html

I'm not even saying that's wrong, but all the genocide is morally questionable at least.

Anonymous ID: 4accb4 Oct. 5, 2025, 2:16 a.m. No.23695035   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5040 >>5041 >>5046

>>23694983

>The public can never see the blackmail tapes because it is illegal to view child porn.

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but it seems to me that the law should be that it is illegal to promulgate "child sex abuse" material for prurient purposes.

It wouldn't necessarily be hard to prove a prurient purpose.

Obviously, there would be some moral hazard in making it legal to see such material in any way, but it seems highly overwhelmed by the positive good that could come from the damage that exposure of such material could due to those who are very often actively harming children.

It is currently literally illegal to see direct evidence of utterly heinous crimes, supposedly to "protect" the victims.

This is absurd on the surface, especially when there are pretty easy ways to protect the victims while enabling the catching and prosecution of the perps.

In reality, such material would be "banned" from the vast majority of the internet, as it is now.

But sites like 8kun could have dedicated boards where it is allowed, for the overt purpose of tracking down and preventing such crimes.

It is really no different from "gore" videos, which are legal, but which most people have no desire to see. There are still very real reasons why they should be legal, among others that they are often evidence of crimes.

Anonymous ID: 4accb4 Oct. 5, 2025, 2:41 a.m. No.23695064   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5067

>>23695041

>In the vein of redaction can a child's identifying features be blurred?

 

It seems to me that dedicated "white hat" hackers could obtain evidence of children ACTIVELY BEING ABUSED, and that this could prove crucial in STOPPING their abuse, but as things stand it seems that the "white hat hackers" would be the ones severely prosecuted, so those with such skills "prudently" refrain from helping children in need.

Anonymous ID: 4accb4 Oct. 5, 2025, 2:57 a.m. No.23695090   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5099

The whole "pedo" charge with Epstein is a complete red herring.

It makes zero difference whether the girls were 17 or 18.

He was morally wrong in manipulating young women into perverted sexual activity, whether to satisfy his own desire or to achieve some sort of blackmail.

The obsession with calling him a "pedo" when he clearly "desired" sexually mature young women reflects an inabilty to reflect on actual moral issues and a hope to escape them by retreating to legalism.