Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

page: 17
38
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


There is so much wrong with what you just said that I think it would take over an hour to point out all of the flaws in your argument ... I just woke up ... and I am still tired ...

I'll do my best I guess ...



Bye bye free speech argument.
Hello issue of obscene child porn.


... Are you trying to say that cartoons of fictional children are the equivalent to pictures of real children? I honestly feel like I am going in a circle here ... and I am not sure how much more I can possibly say it ...

One would think child porn would require children no? Not depictions of fictional children ... Should I point out the differences of real children and drawings?

Children are alive. Drawings are not.

Children have feelings. Drawings do not.

Children can be exploited. Drawings cannot.

Children can be molested. Drawings cannot.

Children are children. Drawings are drawings.

If there is no evidence of real child pornography or child abuse ... why should the justice system waste its time and money prosecuting and imprisoning someone who is interested in cartoons?

Think of the time and money that could have been used to actually stop REAL child molesters and child abusers in general.





If it was so easy to argue that it has artistic merit, why did he plead guilty?

He admitted it was obscene.


Read ImaginaryReality1984's second to last post, he explained it well.




The 7 you mention all contained images of children in sex acts, being sexually abused or engaging in acts of bestiality. The authorities decided 6 years ago on this issue. 6 years ago. Where was your outrage then?


Well I can only speak for myself ... but I was 12 and didn't even know such a law existed ... if I had known then ... perhaps I would have spoken out. It is obviously law that limits personal freedom ... and masks it as a deviate act. Sure these cartoons and drawings are sick, but I am not going to demand someone be imprisoned because I don't agree with them over a victimless "crime" ....




Prosecutors notice that Pedophiles alter habits so as to circumvent laws. People that seek alternative depiction of child pornography go to anime, cut and paste pictures of minors or altered images of minors, onto the bodies of adults who where engaging in sex acts so as to distribute and trade images whilst still falling under free speech after Ashcroft v FSC.


They are cartoons ... who cares? At least they are not looking at the real thing ... which would be a MUCH different story and you would have my full support. I don't know why you mentioned the copy and pasting issue ... that is completely irrelevant.




He is an example that people do not want to tolerate obscene images of children in sex acts or sexual abuse or in acts of bestiality no matter what medium they may be presented in. Period.


Who is asking anyone to tolerate anything? If you don't like the material then don't look at it ... like me.



Yes, I agree that your comment is insane, especially its generalization and its dramatics. People are arrested for drawing all the time! Graffiti! But anyway-


And graffiti can be considered vandalism ... which is an understandable crime seeing as it is property damage.




We are discussing children being depicted in obscene sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.


Except they aren't real children ... How many times will I have to say this? If they depicted REAL children ... I would be VERY upset ... but they aren't ... it is nothing more than the imagination.



I draw my limit at Child porn as well, if the issue where one of the analogies you used, my stance would be different.


*shakes head*





[edit on 16-2-2010 by Nurv47]




posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
maybe he is being prosocuted coz he didnt buy american born and bred cartoons .. look at family guy for example .. there is actualy a pedo in that going after children ... but its american soo its ok ??

[edit on 16-2-2010 by TaintedJustice]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nurv47

There is so much wrong with what you just said that I think it would take over an hour to point out all of the flaws in your argument ... I just woke up ... and I am still tired ...

I'll do my best I guess ...
If you have to guess that this is your best, why bother?



Bye bye free speech argument.
Hello issue of obscene child porn.



... Are you trying to say that cartoons of fictional children are the equivalent to pictures of real children? I honestly feel like I am going in a circle here ... and I am not sure how much more I can possibly say it anymore ...
Did I say that they were the equivalent? No.
Is attempted rape the equivalent of rape?
Is attempted murder the equivalent of murder?
Does that make one acceptable and the other unacceptable?
I hope you see my point.
In the examples I use, both are seen as criminal and have punishments, neither acts are acceptable based on the measure of equivalence, nor is the punishment.

In this case of images of real children and images portraying children in acts. They are not equivalent nor acceptable to the law, and I agree with that. They both carry penalties, and these are not equivalent either. I disagree with the sentence. I have read articles that state the court appointed evaluation felt he withheld information relating to other activities of sexual deviance with minors. I think this may have added to the severity of his sentence.
On the equivalent, in 2005 a man was sentenced for possessing anime porn and real porn. He got 20 years. So the court does not view the content as being equivalent, nor do I.
It appears that one seems to be acceptable to you in the instances of cartoons depicting children in sex acts, acts of sexual abuse and bestiality.
But that does not mean that it is acceptable. The Protect Act of 2003 says it. The law says that. Previous decisions by the supreme court relating to obscene porn and child pornography say that. I agree with it. What I am saying is that I do not differentiate between any images that depict children in sex acts, sexual abuse or bestiality.
You do, it appears.
You are cool with cartoons that depict children is sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.
You are happy for people to create it, produce it, and trade and sell it and use it for sexual gratification.


One would think child porn would require children no? Not depictions of fictional children ... Should I point out the differences of real children and drawings?
You think that. In my experience, and the reality of the OP article presents, along with numerous other cases actually point to evidence that in general, One does not require that child porn is child porn only if there is a victim.
It is the same with animated Adult porn. Is that not porn purely because there are no real adults in it? it is classified that way, is it not?
So why would animated child porn be different? So if adult animated porn is classified as porn, why would animated child pornography not be seen classified exactly as it is, as child pornography? And treated exactly as we treat child pornography.
Please explain that to me?
Are you saying we should accept child pornography?



Children are alive. Drawings are not.
Really, powerful observations.


Children have feelings. Drawings do not.
Children can be exploited. Drawings cannot.
Children can be molested. Drawings cannot.
Children are children. Drawings are drawings.
Child pornography is child pornography. We don't need a victim to define pornography! Or to define obscene pornography or child pornography.
It seems you think the issue is the difference between real images and images that depict children in sex acts. Where as there seems to be an overwhelming feeling that there is no real difference and that the best course of action is to legislate against such imagery regardless of its format or style.

This is where you and I differ.
How do you draw the line? Because, I do not draw a line between any images of children being sexually abused, nor does the law, nor do the courts! Go figure hey!
The content is the same, the acts would be the same, the idea and the purpose of the material is the same. But one is a cartoon. The only thing missing is a victim! So for you, you only need victims for things to be wrong! Is that your point!
That is what it seems to be.
The actual law is different, the laws are related to what is obscene and what is considered child pornography.




If there is no evidence of real child pornography or child abuse ... why should the justice system waste its time and money prosecuting and imprisoning someone who is interested in cartoons?
As has been defined in the laws and here a few times, the definition of what is obscene child pornography does not rely on victims. It seems you do though.
The courts is not wasting its time on people interested in cartoons.
The court prosecuted an individual who broke a law. That is what the court does. The material has been deemed illegal for nearly 7 years. Why have you not been discussing the value of sexual gratification from obscene child sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality in the cartoon format as being acceptable because you view it as victimless!
Where have you been?


Think of the time and money that could have been used to actually stop REAL child molesters and child abusers in general.
How do you know that this has not stopped some? Regardless, this issue is about child pornography. Not the methods used to apprehend a child molester. No doubt though, I am sure child molesters are encouraged by your acceptance of certain types of images relating to children being sexually abused, as that is what child molesters probably accept as well. So I will leave you to your affinity with real child molesters.




Read ImaginaryReality1984's second to last post, he explained it well.
I read it. I guess your definition of well explained difers as much as .


Well I can only speak for myself ... but I was 12 and didn't even know such a law existed ... if I had known then ... perhaps I would have spoken out. It is obviously law that limits personal freedom ... and masks it as a deviate act. Sure these cartoons and drawings are sick, but I am not going to demand someone be imprisoned because I don't agree with them over a victimless "crime" ....
I don't demand that people be imprisoned either. I do demand we set standards though on what we accept. These standards differ then to yours. The reason why people are imprisoned is another issue, and it is as big as this issue.


They are cartoons ... who cares?
A lot of people care.

At least they are not looking at the real thing ... which would be a MUCH different story and you would have my full support. I don't know why you mentioned the copy and pasting issue ... that is completely irrelevant.
I mention the copy and paste issue to illustrate how many different versions of children committing sex acts there are, in order to illustrate the issue. it is not about the style, type or the format, it is about images of children in sex acts.

BTW, no one needs your full support. The law is there. Get used to it.


Who is asking anyone to tolerate anything? If you don't like the material then don't look at it ... like me.
No one is asking anyone to tolerate anything, in fact, this is about what is not tolerated. There is no asking. He was an example is what I said of people not tolerating images of children depicted in sex acts. Wether you like the material or not is irrelevant.
The law is specific on what is child porn, what part of that have you failed to comprehend? Child porn in any form is not tolerated, regardless of who asks what when or who likes what.
This man was an example of that, that it is not acceptable. You can waffle on in your subjective stance, but there is not subjectivity to grace the issue.



And graffiti can be considered vandalism ... which is an understandable crime seeing as it is property damage.
So in this instance drawing is understood as criminal with little dispute in general nor an appeal to freedom of speech to justify that criminal behavior? Drawing in that instance is accepted as criminal. Say like drawing images of children in sex acts as it is seen as generally damaging? Thank you for clarifying the issue.


Except they aren't real children ... How many times will I have to say this? If they depicted REAL children ... I would be VERY upset ... but they aren't ... it is nothing more than the imagination.
We are discussing children being depicted in obscene sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality. You differentiate between depictions. Those depicting real children and those that have illustrations.
We are discussing children being depicted in obscene sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality. The law does not differentiate. Nor do I.
You do.





I draw my limit at Child porn as well, if the issue where one of the analogies you used, my stance would be different.


*shakes head*
Shake it all you want buddy, it is all you have going on with your head it, so it seems.







[edit on 16/2/10 by atlasastro]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I think you have a good point. If we lock this guy up then why don't we lock up author V.C. Andrews for her books?

This seems to be a waste of tax dollars as well. Locking people up for crimes they didn't commit. what about those who exclaim "I am going to kill !"

My kids play PlayStation and XBOX games with some pretty bad stuff in it . should the makers of those games be locked up too then?
V.C Andrews , Holly Wood movie Makers, Video Game Companies, ALl guilty then of making some pretty bad stuff Especially V.C. Andrews! But these people will never be locked up they make too much money. Selective arrest then. Hmm I wonder what this guy did for a living.probably a mediocre job.

I think the guy should be let out he didn't do anything wrong. Its spending tax dollars on a non-criminal...hmm maybe that's why its even being done.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I used to work with pedophiles that were committed because they were a danger to others. (That's one way you can keep them behind lock and key.)

They will use ANYTHING. Better Homes and Gardens. Parenting magazine. ANY picture of any child in about their target range/age, no matter HOW innocent it is. Tonka Truck ads. Toothpaste ads with kids standing in sinks. Pictures of kids playing in sprinklers parents send in to the local newspaper.

It's almost kidding oneself to think that one would be able to take away imagery that they would find appealing in a sexual way!

Dr. Gene Abel would encourage us to provide adult pornography. Of course the state didn't want to do that either.

I don't know what the answer is...but I do know there is more than one type of pedophile....some of them actually love kids...in a very twisted way...others want to dominate and hurt...others see themselves as children and so it is just like "hey, let's play doctor!"

Empathy therapy is the only thing I've ever even heard of that works...sometimes. Taking away pictures...is not going to work. I've never seen it work. Like I said, they'll go tear out diaper pics from Redbook or celebrity baby pics out of PEOPLE.

Not saying it is ok...just ....possibly..if just a FEW could be happy with animations or whatever, it might make the problem a bit better. I dunno. I would like to see a study done on it. Not sure how it could ever be done safely though.

Thinking a bit more..it almost seems like one could TRY to do a progressive sort of orgasmic reconditioning with such imagery, when combined with adult imagery over time. I wonder if anyone has ever tried it.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by hadriana]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Oh my ... more illogical ranting I presume?

I see your sentence structure hasn't improved ...

Okay let me try to read this now ... it looks difficult.




Did I say that they were the equivalent? No. Is attempted rape the equivalent of rape? Is attempted murder the equivalent of murder? Does that make one acceptable and the other unacceptable? I hope you see my point.


I just asked.

Are you comparing fictional cartoons of children and child pornography with attempted murder and murder?

See the problem with that silly comparison is that attempted murder and murder both have victims ... while cartoons of fictional children have none.
Are you trying to pass cartoons off as attempted child porn? So ... it's not child porn ... it's just attempted child porn? ...



What I am saying is that I do not differentiate between any images that depict children in sex acts, sexual abuse or bestiality. You do, it appears. You are cool with cartoons that depict children is sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality. You are happy for people to create it, produce it, and trade and sell it and use it for sexual gratification.


Oh wait let me guess this is the part where I am shocked to find out that you can't differentiate reality between fiction right?

I am not cool with such images ... but the fact is they are simply depictions ... like I have said multiple times ... if it was REAL I would obviously support actions AGAINST it.

Why is it I am either absolutely against something ... or happy for it?
I think that these despicable cartoons are pathetic and disgusting ... but ... I am not going to support someone being imprisoned over it simply because of that ... when there are REAL child molesters out there. Haven't I said this before? I am under the impression you either can't read or you simply see what you want to see.




So if adult animated porn is classified as porn, why would animated child pornography not be seen classified exactly as it is, child pornography? And treated exactly as we treat child pornography. Please explain that to me? Are you saying we should accept child pornography?


I am saying that CHILD PORNOGRAPHY is WRONG because it exploits CHILDREN and abuses them. That is why it is wrong obviously? Did you think child porn was simply illegal because people didn't like it? Do you think that fictional children from cartoons can be exploited and abused?
If you think think that I am saying we should accept child porn you obviously are not listening to me.




Child pornography is child pornography. We don't need a victim to define pornography!


We don't? ... What exactly is the focus of child pornography? I am going am going to go out and take a wild guess okay? The children? Hmmm so aren't those children the ... victims? Isn't that why child porn is illegal? You didn't think this through very much did you?



How do you draw the line? Because, I do not draw a line between any images of children being sexually abused, nor does the law, nor do the courts! Go figure hey!


Oh, well that makes it okay. Because the law says so ... United States law, indeed. Not Japanese law though ... Well, obviously we are smarter and more sophisticated than those Japanese so ... we shouldn't take into account their stance.

Those bound by US law should follow it ... doesn't mean it's right.



BTW, no one needs your full support. The law is there. Get used to it.


Don't the people have a say in the law or did this change overnight?



We are discussing children being depicted in obscene sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality. You differentiate between depictions.


No we are discussing fictional children ... you obviously have a hard time distinguishing the two.

Shame I ran out of room.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Nurv47]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Well...it is JMO, but the first thing we need to do with our law enforcement resources, is crack down on child sex tourism to Asia. We've slapped at it a bit, but it needs to be stopped cold.

We can be worrying about animated pictures all day long encouraging someone to act on a drive they have (That I've never seen go away, even with depo-provera (chemical castration) and empathy therapy) ...

...when you take all their pictures away from them, and they've got their Pampers and sippy cup ads - all they have to do is ACT decent so they can get a plane ticket to Thailand for a special 'vacation.'



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Well, time to finish this response I suppose. Although I might as well get started with another one seeing as how you will likely just repeat yourself over, and over, and over again until you are heard ... regardless of logic.




I read it. I guess your definition of well explained difers as much as .


Oh yay more insults?! That's one way to get your point across I suppose.




I don't demand that people be imprisoned either. I do demand we set standards though on what we accept. These standards differ then to yours. The reason why people are imprisoned is another issue, and it is as big as this issue.


How about you accept what you accept ... and I accept ... what I accept? And we stay out of peoples business when they aren't doing anything that infringes on anyones else's rights or freedoms Sound good?




A lot of people care.


People like you I suppose ... but you seem to have a hard time with telling reality and cartoons apart ... why should we listen to you?




*shakes head*

Shake it all you want buddy, it is all you have going on with your head it, so it seems.


More attacks? Wonderful.

I am not sure ... what you mean by that? You didn't even quote my head shake ... and it looks like you just shook your own head ... hypocrisy or mistake? Either way ... I feel sorry for you.



I have now twice said we should stop with attacks and simply agree to disagree (not directly towards you ... but I would assume you saw that post) ... yet ... people like you just seem to like pointless arguing ...

Are you going to respond with another post that is riddled with silly attacks and am I going to have to respond the same way? Or are you going to simply stop so we can have a civil conversation?







[edit on 16-2-2010 by Nurv47]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Ive heard of law enforcement using bait in sting type operations as Im sure everyone here has as well. If the artists were on board with this type of op, how would that go? They could relay with text that the depicted subjects were of age, yet suggest with imagery that the subject was indeed underage. Like depicting a child in a sex act, but saying with text that the subject was indeed of age.
From my understanding the books that this guy was popped for used text AND imagery to portray the age of the subjects. (this is why it was illegal)
So is it legal to posess material that shows a 1000 year old infant engaging in sex acts? As a 1000 year old infant is possible in the realm of fantasy. If this is an existing loophole, then LE could monitor the sales and distribution of these legal forms to begin investigating potential violators.

If I were to guess I would say this guy probably wasnt a pedo, and in reality the possibility of him being one probably didnt play much into him being busted. I still think to knowingly produce , distribute, and posess any of this crap makes a person one that I wouldnt choose to be around. Id bet this was part of a much larger international investigation, and we are just not being told about that part. Being an avid collector as some here claim, he probably had some info that he didnt even know he had (ya know a piece of the puzzle) And all of the attention this is getting is bound to draw out some REAL sympathizers who will bear further scrutiny. So if you are on here and you seriously believe that this child porn should be a legitimate industry and that it has no victims....The Eyes of The Eagle Are Upon You.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by psyko45]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by psyko45
So if you are on here and you seriously believe that this child porn should be a legitimate industry and that it has no victims....The Eyes of The Eagle Are Upon You.


I don't believe it has no victims, i know for a fact it doesn't because a cartoon cannot be a victim! Please tell me how you think a victim could exist when it's a cartoon. I am not defending real child pornography as that involves a flesh and blood child to be hurt and exploited. If this guy had in his possession the real thing then i'd be posting on here to say he should never be released from prison/mental institution.

If the eyes are upon me i don't much care. I don't have any of this stuff and i think it's sick. Oh i have an anime collection, but it's all mainstream stuff like Bleach and Naruto. I am not defending the morality of the material this man had, i am only defending the rights of someone to not be imprisoned for a victimless crime and i am defending the existence of the material because it hurts no one.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Have you traced every phase of the creation and distribution of this child porn, all the way down to where the staples are made that bind the pages together? Have you followed every reader and purveyor? I doubt it. You think for one second that this garbage isnt in the waiting rooms of child sex slavery houses? Just to get the john primed up. The world isnt as pretty of a place as you would like it to be. Why do you think teflon coated bullets or CKBs, black talons or whatever you want to call them are banned? Because one person used them to kill a cop. Maybe Im a collector and I just want to have some black talons just for kicks, guess what? I cant..and if I go get some and get caught ,I pay the piper.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by psyko45
 


ImaginaryReality1984 couldn't have said it any better.

I don't appreciate you equating the people that are standing up for freedom and personal rights with supporters of child molesters and child pornography. It's quite dishonest and rather deceitful. It has been said many times that no one here supports these cartoons ...

I think it's rather ridiculous anyone can be charged with with such nonsense for possessing these cartoons and that people actually think that child pornography that involves actually human suffering is the same to these manga images. They are not even comparable in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TaintedJustice
 


The case of Family Guy and the old man pedo showcases the hypocrisy and stupidity of this law.

In one episode, the pedophile marries and has babies with the neighbor child.

I guess everyone who has that episode on video is a pedophile.

According to this insane 2003 law they are by definition in possession of child porn, based on the prior conviction of the guy in this thread.



And please ignore those trying to derail the thread with cries of where was our outrage when the law was passed.

That is a typical bad debate method. The posters who espouse this logic have no idea if we expressed outrage back then. Whether we did or not is moot, for the topic is NOT our outrage, nor our reaction to the seven yr old law. It is an attempt to derail from the topic, and the valid points being raised.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
It's absolutely shocking to see how many people are equating cartoons to real children. Probably unintentional but it shows that it is emotional driven and devoid of logic. Hate the pictures, call them disgusting etc but they are CARTOONS! how the hell can someone be put in jail for cartoons? The way some of these replies read we might aswell just go the whole shebang and give them bloody rights.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Solomons]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Nurv47
 


I guess everything in life cant be apreciated by everyone. Youll get over it Im sure.

I do have a question though

What if someone had watched some child porn and decided to draw a picture of it? So because that person drew the picture it means there was no origional victim?
Just a thought.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by psyko45
reply to post by Nurv47
 


I guess everything in life cant be apreciated by everyone. Youll get over it Im sure.

I do have a question though

What if someone had watched some child porn and decided to draw a picture of it? So because that person drew the picture it means there was no origional victim?
Just a thought.



Realistic pictures of actual children is COMPLETELY different than manga images. I have stated before that if these cartoons were depictions of actual children that it would have my full support for being illegal and banned. I highly doubt all these manga are based off real events (have you ever actually read a manga?) ... of course I have no way of knowing.

It might be a good idea to investigate the artists, writers, and publishers for any known links to actual child pornography or child molesters ... that may or may not yield results. But there is no reason to prosecute without any evidence of child pornography or child abuse.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Nurv47]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by psyko45
reply to post by Nurv47
 


I guess everything in life cant be apreciated by everyone. Youll get over it Im sure.

I do have a question though

What if someone had watched some child porn and decided to draw a picture of it? So because that person drew the picture it means there was no origional victim?
Just a thought.



In that case there is a victim - actual child in that porn which the picture depicts.

But if real child porn is not involved, only imaginary child porn, there is no actual victim and it is not a crime.

Victimless crime is not a crime.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Nurv47
 


If by magna you mean a comic that portrays children engaging in sex acts, no I have'nt. But I dont think I have to eat dog doo to know that it tastes bad.
Please understand Im a huge Sci Fi fan, and some of the Anime Ive seen on mainstream tv is alright, and I have nothing against it.(though its not on my preferred list)
But this debate is not about anime as an artform.
If the artist of these images is walking down the street and sees some children on a playground and uses even one detail of that memory to create an image of sexually charged activity among children , IMHO that artist has exploited that child.
In order for the artist to draw a child he or she has to have had seen one at some point to use as a frame of reference. And that child no matter when or where or how has become a victim, knowingly or not.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by psyko45]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by psyko45
 


By manga I was referring to manga in general ...depending on the manga people and real people have physical differences and some of the stories can be rather ... unrealistic ... that was the only point I was trying to make.

If cartoons of fictional children are based off of real children how can we possibly know that? I could easily say that everything that has ever been drawn or written about was based of something or someone that existed therefore it is an exploitation. I think it depends on the realism of the image and the accuracy to determine if someone was actually exploited or not.


[edit on 16-2-2010 by Nurv47]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Nurv47
 


Thats rationalization in its purest form. Unfortunately this is an issue on which I cannot waiver. If we were discussing almost anything other than child exploitation I might say "you know I can kind of see your point" simply for the reason of scientific exploration of a topic...just not with kids...sorry.





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join