Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 38 times


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 09:43 AM by Nurv47
reply to post by silo13




It portrays sexual acts with children for the use of sexual gratification, child rape as the protagonist for the gratification... What's that called? Child porn.


I thought child porn was sexually explicit material that ... you know ... involved real children ... not Japanese cartoons. Child porn is illegal because it involves real children ... children which were abused. These Japanese cartoons do not involve real children, therefore no one was abused.

Once again I fall to see how cartoons "hurt children everywhere".

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Nurv47]


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 09:45 AM by ImaginaryReality1984
Originally posted by silo13
I will bow to no man, or no organization, or no group of people, or submit to any peer pressure on line or off when it comes to the subject of protecting the innocence of children in any and all ways.

If you can't do the same there's something wrong with you. IMO of course, lol.

peace



All you do is insult and throw out lame comparisons. I ask you again to provide a logical reason and you simply fail. Instead of addressing my points you state there is somethign wrong with me. Ad hominem attacks are the last bulwark of the weak argument.

As you have no logical argument to advance and yet continue holding the position you do, it can only be surmised that you are unable to put your emotions aside to discuss this in a considered way and as such you are unworthy of debating the topic.

This isn't me saying you can't hold the opposing viewpoint (because you can) i simply want a logical reason for it. By saying that these images should be allowed is in no way corrupting the innocence of children. The children will happily go about their lives in complete ignorance of any of this so how exactly is their innocence harmed?

You also skipped over the idea that offenders may be using these images instead of the real thing and in doing so a real child is saved from abuse. This means that by opposing these images you are actively causing the abuse of children.

See how that works?


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 09:45 AM by silo13
reply to post by avatar01

...if you think that the mere THOUGHT of having sex with a child is evil and must be punished then you are a hypocrite, because you have thought of it yourself.


Dude? Do you need a pile of dog doo right there on your plate to know it isn't going to be tasty eating or do you have to take a bite first? By your train of though, go get your napkin! ROTFL

I don't need to ponder on child porn, to think of it or indulge in it to know it's wrong on every level.

as such you are unworthy of debating the topic.

What part of my first post do you NOT understand?

I told you clearly and explicitly I would not debate my opinion. Get it?

That you can't stand the fact I wont debate you and have resulted in the following statements only proves my point... (Laughing fit to be tied here)

I mean, get a load a this guy!

If you think that the mere THOUGHT of having sex with a child is evil and must be punished then you are a hypocrite, because you have thought of it yourself.

By THINKING of this act, you are portraying it in your mind, and therefore sir, you ARE a child pornographer by your own logic.


There is seriously something wrong with someone who will accuse a stranger of thinking about having sex with a child in order to try to win an argument.

By the way, I'm not a Sir. (*still laughing*)

Oh man, nothing like people proving your point for you.

Ok, so anyway, I told you I will not debate this, I will not change my mind, and I don't owe you or any one else an explanation.

Sorry you and a few others can't deal with someone who has moral backbone and cannot, I repeat cannot be swayed.

peace


[edit on 14-2-2010 by silo13]


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 09:47 AM by Nutter
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


My question:

What of the "artists" of said cartoons? Have they been put into jail too?


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 09:54 AM by Nurv47
reply to post by silo13




I will bow to no man, or no organization, or no group of people, or submit to any peer pressure on line or off when it comes to the subject of protecting the innocence of children in any and all ways.

If you can't do the same there's something wrong with you. IMO of course, lol.




You sir need help.

I hope you get it.

peace


Hmmm, well for someone who "will bow to no man, or no organization, or no group of people, or submit to any peer pressure" you sure seem to expect everyone else to bow down and submit to your silly opinions or else you insult them and tell them they need help ... judgmental much? And all in the name of the children, you are truly a despicable person. Perhaps it is you who needs help.



[edit on 14-2-2010 by Nurv47]


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 10:22 AM by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Nutter


The actors and actresses in Twilight are over 18 aren't they? So it isn't really comparable. Although i admit my knowledge of Twilight is limited, i refuse to watch it.


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 10:23 AM by Liberal1984
This man does not deserve imprisonment.

No he shouldn't be in prison, but neither would I want him to work in a primary school, and definitely not one a child from my family attended!
Why? I would say I (that since most people don't want to possess graphic child images, let alone get sexual gratification from looking at them) that although they are cartoons, there is a much higher chance (than normal) that this man is (in the wrong situation) open to child abuse.
But there is higher chance normal that black people will commit crimes. Come to think of it there is an even "higher chance than normal" that people released from prison will go on to commit further crimes. So should the state go round imprisoning you-others for having "a higher chance" than normal, of being a threat?
In my view it should only be done by the state, in anticipation of (a soon to be scheduled) successful, state prosecution, by a public jury, against the individual.
Just as with homosexuality you don't choose to be a paedophile.

A better analogy is to say: "just like with schizophrenia, you don't choose to be a paedophile." Because paedophilia is (just like BDSM) a sexual Paraphilia: en.wikipedia.org... this means it's an acquired sexual taste, as opposed to one that is more biologically based. Because it's aquired from your life experiences, this means looking at child images can make the paedophilia urges stronger, and that's one of the reasons why child sex images are illegal. Otherwise all that would be needed is a stockpile of legal child porn, to stop the creation of new child porn. And so I'm sorry to all the "creativity fans" but I don't mind living in a society where sharing these images is illegal, and I acknowledge that is a lot more easier said than done.
Also many gay guys have far more of the female hormones than the average man would (opposite for lesbians). Many families that have had a history of homosexually, seem to have a higher chance of it reoccurring (although "a gay gene" has proved illusive, it's thought to be more of a combination of genetic characteristics that causes homosexually (in at least a high portion of all homosexuals). So it's unfair to equate paedophilia with homosexually, as it seems homosexually tends to have a strong biological basis, rather than just merely just a strong psychological one.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



The One Party System replaces the Two Party system in the U.S.
  Posted 2 days ago with 14 member flags
Virginia House Bill 1160: Nullify the NDAA
  Posted 16 days ago with 10 member flags
The Solution
  Posted 5 days ago with 7 member flags
2010 Hate Crime Statistics
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags
Ron Paul\'s fans are building like legos
  Posted 15 days ago with 1 member flags
With all this talk about possible voter fraud...
  Posted 1 days ago with 1 member flags