The problem is with vouching for the well-being of children in the photos, is that to do so their privacy would have to be breached. I don't think there's an easy way around this.
As for Alefantis speaking more openly about this - it is interesting to note how the Sex Stains label manager came here to discuss their issue, he did a lot more by talking about it here than Alefantis has done at all.
Thanks. I think there is a case here, where by not vouching for who these children are, it creates far more speculation. If they are okay, all that needs to happen, is a parent come forward and say so. If there are parents, it stands out, that they have let their children be photographed that way ion the first place, and not objected to the things said about them, but to not come out now, just creates deeper concerns. I can only assume, there is no account for any of them, if we do not know it by now. But I hope there can be. I believe it should be a focus of this investigation to find out. It is possible that some of them can be saved. It is clear that some of these children, such as in the Luzatto family, are in the hands of predators... if these children are okay, it should be the easiest thing in the world, to speak up, and say I am okay, I am alive, and I have not been harmed. Or for someone who knows them to say something. It would be the first thing to do, if it could be done. If it can't, then maybe this is why all the distraction.
Yes but the problem there is, if the parents make themselves known then by default it can identify their children. Having said that, Alefantis publicly claimed the child taped to a table is his God daughter, so that in itself potentially identifies her and I'll assume that such information thus becomes public domain. I'm just unsure about the ethics of looking too deeply into who the children are, purely based on their inalienable rights to privacy. Yes, a picture of a toddler taped to a table surely warrants the attention of child protection agencies, as does some of the bizarre comments elsewhere. Again, I don't think there's a simple solution because some of those pictures and comments are extremely odd.
As to the three children around the table at CPP during a sleep-over, the mother of at least one of them can already be identified - her response was to issue a take-down order against The Daily Sheeple rather than explicitly confirming their well-being.
Thanks, I did not know about that response. Another clear indicator. They could avoid having to identify anyone, if they were truly innocent, they would just need to offer a polygraph. May not be a hundred percent conclusive, but it could shave a huge amount of speculation away. That plus a body language expert or two, and we could know the truth. It should be easy for an innocent person to say, "I have not sold children, killed children," etc. A few simple questions, could end mountains of speculation, that is only going to grow. Natural logic, if they were innocent. It paints a picture of guilt otherwise, that soon no one will be able to ignore. I have to imagine, the concerns are already at record numbers. People know, something is wrong. The denials, and calling things he has done, jokes, and calling people crazy for being worried, have all added, to what was already, as alarming as it gets. His only card to play, in reality, is to confess, and if there are children he still has somewhere, to set them free. What he has done, and the others who have done it with him, is unforgivable, but if there is any hope if eventual redemption for them, it is in letting children go now. The sooner he sees this, the better. Which is why I hope this line of inquiry will be pursued, until the logic of it catches up to him. ...It applies in all these cases. Why ever let something be speculated on, this much, if it is not true? If it is not true, there would be heaps of ways, to show it. There are no ways, of defending this, which is why he has skipped doing so, and gone straight to the offensive,
view the rest of the comments →
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
The problem is with vouching for the well-being of children in the photos, is that to do so their privacy would have to be breached. I don't think there's an easy way around this.
As for Alefantis speaking more openly about this - it is interesting to note how the Sex Stains label manager came here to discuss their issue, he did a lot more by talking about it here than Alefantis has done at all.
YouaremeandIamyou ago
Thanks. I think there is a case here, where by not vouching for who these children are, it creates far more speculation. If they are okay, all that needs to happen, is a parent come forward and say so. If there are parents, it stands out, that they have let their children be photographed that way ion the first place, and not objected to the things said about them, but to not come out now, just creates deeper concerns. I can only assume, there is no account for any of them, if we do not know it by now. But I hope there can be. I believe it should be a focus of this investigation to find out. It is possible that some of them can be saved. It is clear that some of these children, such as in the Luzatto family, are in the hands of predators... if these children are okay, it should be the easiest thing in the world, to speak up, and say I am okay, I am alive, and I have not been harmed. Or for someone who knows them to say something. It would be the first thing to do, if it could be done. If it can't, then maybe this is why all the distraction.
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
Yes but the problem there is, if the parents make themselves known then by default it can identify their children. Having said that, Alefantis publicly claimed the child taped to a table is his God daughter, so that in itself potentially identifies her and I'll assume that such information thus becomes public domain. I'm just unsure about the ethics of looking too deeply into who the children are, purely based on their inalienable rights to privacy. Yes, a picture of a toddler taped to a table surely warrants the attention of child protection agencies, as does some of the bizarre comments elsewhere. Again, I don't think there's a simple solution because some of those pictures and comments are extremely odd.
As to the three children around the table at CPP during a sleep-over, the mother of at least one of them can already be identified - her response was to issue a take-down order against The Daily Sheeple rather than explicitly confirming their well-being.
YouaremeandIamyou ago
Thanks, I did not know about that response. Another clear indicator. They could avoid having to identify anyone, if they were truly innocent, they would just need to offer a polygraph. May not be a hundred percent conclusive, but it could shave a huge amount of speculation away. That plus a body language expert or two, and we could know the truth. It should be easy for an innocent person to say, "I have not sold children, killed children," etc. A few simple questions, could end mountains of speculation, that is only going to grow. Natural logic, if they were innocent. It paints a picture of guilt otherwise, that soon no one will be able to ignore. I have to imagine, the concerns are already at record numbers. People know, something is wrong. The denials, and calling things he has done, jokes, and calling people crazy for being worried, have all added, to what was already, as alarming as it gets. His only card to play, in reality, is to confess, and if there are children he still has somewhere, to set them free. What he has done, and the others who have done it with him, is unforgivable, but if there is any hope if eventual redemption for them, it is in letting children go now. The sooner he sees this, the better. Which is why I hope this line of inquiry will be pursued, until the logic of it catches up to him. ...It applies in all these cases. Why ever let something be speculated on, this much, if it is not true? If it is not true, there would be heaps of ways, to show it. There are no ways, of defending this, which is why he has skipped doing so, and gone straight to the offensive,