>>3530503

Just FYI:

Child pornography is defined as a depiction of a child that is clearly sexualized, and specifically does NOT include grandma's photos of her grandchildren bathing in the nude.

Actual pedophiles do use this loophole, there's a lot of "Naturalist" web sites that operate perfectly legally, because the images are not sexualized, the sexualization is only in the viewer's head. Of course, there would be little interest in this kind of stuff if it wasn't for pedos, but still, it's technically and legally not CP.

When it comes to the picture anon posted here, it is absolutely 100 % legal, and does not qualify as child pornography.

I would advice you to put on grandma's glasses and see a kid playing on the beach, not potential fap material. For your own sanity. Getting triggered is for NPC's.

>>3530568

Yes, it's really sad the way this pedo shit gets everyone on edge.

There's a park in my town. When I buy an ice cream and sit down on a park bench I always take great care to specifically NOT sit on one close to or directed towards the playground. Because it's BAD OPTICS for a single man to sit where children are playing. It's become a goddamn strategy game avoiding all unnecessary contact with children these days!

But I understand why it is necessary, so I'm not really complaining. I just think it's a shame we must all look at each other as potential molesters, and would rather live on a planet where the thought an adult might be sexually interested in children never enters anyone's mind, because it never happens.

>>3530580

The legal situation is messy, because laws differ around the world.

And there's also the matter of the viewer's intent, which can be determined by a court. If the INTENT of watching otherwise legal images is obviously sexualized, then it actually becomes illegal to do so.

For instance, a lot of children put up videos on YouTube. These videos were clearly not made with pornographic intent, but they may still accidentally be of interest to pedophiles. There's nothing wrong with watching one of these videos as long as your reasons are innocent, but if you start downloading thousands of them, then it's definitely suspicious, and the police will be interested in your hard drive.

Collecting vast amounts of otherwise perfectly legal images of nude children is illegal, since the intent can reasonably be judged to be pornographic.

One legal loophole that isn't closed yet though, is clothed images, even when the clothing is on the skimpy side. There is a ton of "modeling agencies" selling images of children in swimwear and underwear, and they are operating legally on the net. It's hard to find a reason anyone who isn't a pedophile would buy this material, but for now it's actually allowed.

The legal phrase "could be used for lascivious purposes" you mentioned is clearly given a pretty lax interpretation, since these sites keep operating openly, year after year.

>>3530758

I have a hard time believing your story, because you're being so cold and impersonal about it. I would have said my "son" or my "daughter", not my "child". I would have mentioned his or her age too, and some of the more personal circumstances around the happenings. These things would have been more important for me in telling the story than pointing out my 150 IQ, even if I had one.

I could be wrong of course, but this reads like the story lacks depth because the author didn't bother to invent a background.

>>3530916

I agree the story isn't farfetched at all, and could well be true, this shit is happening all the time. It's just something about this anon's delivery that makes me doubt him.

Which is weird, because I generally believe most people on the internet are telling the truth, as they see it if nothing else.

>>3530995

Nah. Lindsey Graham looks SUPER HAPPY being his new improved self. I doubt he will flip back if he can possibly avoid it.

>>3531001

There are two reasons I trust Q and POTUS:

1. A lot of stuff really is happening. Sealed indictments, human trafficking busting.

1. Q himself.

The latter might require an explanation. I trust Q, because I sense the human behind the words. I sense sincerity, I sense deep conviction, I sense strength, seriousness and a sense of responsibility. And I sense anger channeled into effective action, and impatience with fools. In short, I sense that Q is honestly fighting exactly the war he claims to be fighting.

Maybe you're right and this is just a psyop. But every fiber of my being tells me this is the real deal - an honest attempt to make the world a better place by taking out some trash. If Q turns out to have been a psyop and a cover for mischief all along I'll never trust my intuition again.

>>3531010

OK, I think I understand why you come off as "cold" now.

>>3531024

I'm still withholding judgment on who is /ourguy/ and who isn't until I get clear evidence, so I'm not at all sure MBS qualifies. Or Lindsey Graham for that matter. I'm just saying, Graham strikes me as A LIBERATED MAN recently. I don't think he's a good enough actor to fake that.

>>3531079

Well, I already changed opinion. I need to see a person express their authentic self to believe them is all. You did that in an earlier post to me.

>>3531182

I'm afraid not. I can send a prayer in your direction from across the Atlantic, but that's about it.