Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

page: 18
38
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by psyko45
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.


I completely understand ... and you are entitled to your opinions. It's not easy for me to even think of this subject ... I am just trying my best to put aside all bias.

It's nothing personal at all and I respect your opinions.




posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Nurv47
 


That is a truly noble undertaking "trying to put aside all bias", but there are just some things in this world we as humans have to be biassed against, and gross exploitation of children is one of those.

Peace



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by psyko45
 


Perhaps you are right, there are just somethings humans can't agree with ... I have felt to change my opinion on this matter ... but I just can't allow myself to ... there are indeed parts of me which are indeed against this disgusting "art" ... and I am partially torn.

But ... I still stand firm with my current opinion (at least for the moment) ...
because I believe in freedom and justice more than anything ... I try to at least.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by psyko45
That is a truly noble undertaking "trying to put aside all bias", but there are just some things in this world we as humans have to be biassed against, and gross exploitation of children is one of those.

Peace


Once again, no children are being exploited because these are cartoons. No real children are involved. If these pictures were realistic and depicted a real child then i would support a ban on them. Yes it is noble to put aside bias and actually only those who can do so should be the people who have the power to instigate a law.


Originally posted by psyko45
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.


I fail to see how this has anything to do with the legality of it.


Originally posted by psyko45
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.


If a business is prostituting children then don't you think they'll be handing out real child pornography?

Which scenario would you prefer. Some guy in his house alone watching real child pornography or using this cartoon stuff? I know you will say you prefer neither but this is the real world and if you ban the cartoon stuff then offenders will just use the real thing. I would prefer they use something which harms no one and may very well stop them from offending.


Originally posted by psyko45
The world isnt as pretty of a place as you would like it to be.


Actually you are the one believing it is a pretty place as you think that banning this stuff is a good idea. I have linked in a past thread a story about an offender who had switched from real child pornography to this cartoon stuff. So by supporting the ban on this material you are leaving paedophiles no choice but to use the real stuff, and so a real child is abused.

Again i will say i would prefer they use this fake stuff. In the end they will use something and lets be clear, according to psychologists and people that work with paedophiles there are many out there who never actually abuse children but do use pornography. Without that release it is a very worrying thought of what they may do.


Originally posted by psyko45
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.


Bullets have one purpose, to be fired out of a gun and kill someone (or shoot a target of course). Cartoon images like this could be argued to have one purpose, to be used for self gratification. However they don't hurt anyone so your comparison is flawed.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 





2002 "Virtual Porn" deemed not abuse over ruling 1996 CPPA which was tabled to deal with the net and images, then we get Protect Act 2003.

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


You know, I think we have become so complacent that we have subcontracted out our analytical thinking ability. We judge what is constitutional, not by reading the constitution, but by what we are told is constitutional. If our legislators pass legislation we assume that it must be constitutional. I disagree with this approach.

Hello free speech argument:

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Here is what allows the prosecution of those involved in the trading of child porn.

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


A cartoon, even in the most inclusive of definitions, is not a person. Nor can it be child porn as an image is not a child. Therefore a cartoon does not have rights.




This man, in the OP, by his own admission, imported obscene images depicting children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality specifically for sexual gratification.


When one is under threat or duress an "admission" can not be considered as evidence of fact or of intent. Would it help my argument if I told you that even your supreme court agrees with my statement?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by psyko45
 





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.


So in other words if you disagree with imprisoning individuals for a cartoon then you must be a pedophile. Just like if you disagree with "anti-terror" legislation you must be terrorist. Or if you disagree with "anti-hate speech" legislation you must be a racist.

I think we have all heard this tactic before. Your lame attempt at threatening and bullying people into agreement is sad.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by psyko45
 





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.


Is anyone trying to make that argument? Are you? If there is a murder and someone draws a picture of it does that mean there was no victim? What do you think???




posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The moment your founding fathers (Global Elite pawns to a man) wrote something down and made it a 'Right' they deliberately attempted to enslave you. At that very moment in your history was when you lost your right to everything including free speech. Now for the ignorant look at the last two words in the previous sentence. FREE SPEECH. There is absolutely no situation where a person hasn't the right to their own FREE SPEECH. No law or man has the right to hinder it. The only right you have is not to agree with what's being said, to ignore it and not to comply with any instructions. This is what is meant by FREE SPEECH. No Religion, Government, Party or person can stop it. Who made these laws? I can tell you it wasn't the wishes of the minority. Our land masses we call countries are awash with laws that are there to enslave nothing more. There are only two common laws. Not to harm another nor their property (Very simple isn’t it, any ideas how many laws the Law society produce year on year? – 1000’s) Now how many Free men can say that their governments don't harm them or their property? You don't even have property (Money, Property, Cars etc)its already been taken from you and you get a ‘certificate’ not ownership. We even hand over our children by ‘registering’ them with the state. Why do you need to audit your children? The last bastion of your freedom is what comes out of your mouth and your being imprisoned for that too.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mlmijyd
 


As interesting as that was ... I don't necessarily agree with it, nor do I see its relevance to the topic at hand ...

Of course you are welcome to explain yourself.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I don't think there has to be an identified victim for these cartoons to be wrong.

It's real simple for me. I think pedophile images/pedophile pornography is and should be illegal. I think they contribute to gratification of a socialogical sickness - pedophilia.

Are images of naked children always pedophile images? No, I don't think so, although if those images are sold, I have to wonder about the people buying them, or choosing to keep and view them. Parents sometimes take cutesy photos of their naked children. They should not share them or, God forbid, post them on the internet.

Cartoons/photographs/video/crayon drawings, whatever.... that depict children in sexual situations or sexually provocative poses are and should be illegal, and after going after (legally) the creators of such images, I think it's proper to also go after those that posess them.

For me, it's not a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech doesn't grant one the freedom to break the law.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mlmijyd
 


I agree with your post in it's entirety. You should start a thread. There are some that will rebut your post as stating that a depiction can harm another. Do you agree?

Edit to add:

I should rephrase that. What some are trying to argue is that by a person willingly viewing a cartoon that another is harmed.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by harvib]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
For me, it's not a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech doesn't grant one the freedom to break the law.


So if there was a law saying you are not allowed to criticise the government then you would say that freedom of speech does not give you the right to break the law? That arguement is flawed from the start.

Once again, just because you find the images distastful (as do i) does not mean they should be illegal. These images may very well be used by paedophiles so that they do not act upon their urges. Statistically where the use of pornography increases the incidence of rape goes down, so it stands to reason that the use of this pornography by individuals attracted to children could help to prevent them from hurting a child.

Now if that is the case would you still say these images should be illegal? Even though holding that view could very well mean that more real children are abused.


Originally posted by argentus
Are images of naked children always pedophile images? No, I don't think so, although if those images are sold, I have to wonder about the people buying them, or choosing to keep and view them. Parents sometimes take cutesy photos of their naked children. They should not share them or, God forbid, post them on the internet.


This to me highlights a very big problem with society when it comes to the hysteria surrounding children. Parents should not upload images of their own children to the internet? So if some mother somewhere takes a picture of her child in a swimming pool and posts it say on her facebook account with a caption like "Marys' first swim" then that parent should get in trouble for it?

Seriously now things are getting out of hand.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


By your same logic we should ban movies that portray murder. Murder is illegal and therefore the portrayal of murder must also be illegal.




Parents sometimes take cutesy photos of their naked children. They should not share them...


What a sad society we have become. It used to be common place for parents to share pictures of their new born baby. Now these same parents could be imprisoned for child porn and we have people that would support such imprisonment.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


Most if not all of your points have been brought up and addressed earlier in this thread ...

I think it would do you and anyone else who plans on posting in this thread quite a bit of good to simply read the entire thing before posting anything ... or at least the first couple of pages ...

Otherwise others and myself may have to start quoting ourselves for the remainder of this thread ...



[edit on 16-2-2010 by Nurv47]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
(double post ... please delete ... why is the quote button so close to edit ... : / )

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Nurv47]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



So if there was a law saying you are not allowed to criticise the government then you would say that freedom of speech does not give you the right to break the law? That arguement is flawed from the start.


That's exactly the point. There IS NO such law within the United States (not allowing a person to criticize the government.) In fact, the founders of the Constitution practically encouraged it.

It's not just disturbing images. They are illegal images and for good reason. I can look at a mere "disturbing" image and not like it, but recognize that it is legal to portray. Do you really want pedophelia images to be available to those who crave them? No, of course you don't. Neither do I. If they are found in a person's posession, should we require the person to go into counseling? Possibly. I don't believe the whole thing should be just swept under the carpet. The owner of those images probably has a serious problem. They possibly even know it is wrong, legally, morally and socialogically.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Nurv47
 


I read the entire thread, beginning yesterday. I am allowed to express my opinion based upon the questions raised in the OP, yes? Yes.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


Of course but I have seen these same arguments before ... arguments which have been addressed, so it seemed as if you had not read it ...

Forgive my assumption.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 



By your same logic we should ban movies that portray murder. Murder is illegal and therefore the portrayal of murder must also be illegal.


Movies are fiction, right? Movies are made that are somewhat documentary in style. Murder happens. I wouldn't object to a movie about pedophelia -- the condition, or even a movie which had a pedophile in it. I probably wouldn't care much for the movie. Images that are clearly engaging pedophiles do not fall into the same category -- you're employing somewhat circular logic.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Nurv47
 


No worries, and no apology necessary. I'm often late for the "show" because I do read the whole thread, and not always as it occurs. I think this issue incites a sense of a 'gray area' for some, and therefore it's a very important thread.

Perhaps my error is in thinking that my opinion holds weight one way or the other, or that it is even necessary.
silly me.

cheers Nurv



  exclusive video


top topics
 
38
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join