Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I agree with OP.

This man does not deserve imprisonment.
He could very well watch these cartoons to stop himself commit a real crime.

Just as with homosexuality you don't choose to be a pedophile.
So removing them won't make it go away.
But it could eventually make him to unload his feelings for real.

Above it all. Who draws these cartoons ?
He is just as sick minded.

To judge one guilty for a crime he did not commit is pointless.
Start like that and just register every child abuser lock them up and never let them free again..



+6 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
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]


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

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?



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
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]



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


My question:

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


+4 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
You sir need help.

I hope you get it.

peace


More personal attacks, is this all you can do? Do you have no real argument to advance? Maybe you should leave this topic alone until you can think up an actual opposing argument that we can respond to instead of this reactionary nonsense.


Originally posted by Nutter

My question:

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



The man purchased the cartoons from Japan where they are legal but was prosecuted in the USA as he was a US citizen. Therefore the artists have not been imprisoned. If they were US citizens then they would have been.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]


+6 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   


You sir need help.

I hope you get it.

peace


How can you be against something that you have never imagined?

How can you imagine something to be bad unless you picture it in your mind?

At least I make the distinction between reality and my imagination, whereas you are a self-proclaimed child pornographer in denial.

Temet Nosce.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
In my opinion people who condone the viewing of children as sexual objects, to be used for sexual gratification - IN ANY FORM - are as guilty as pedophiles themselves.


Yet we have the 9-year old Cyrus slut selling lingerie. Which people are happy to protect.


[edit on 14-2-2010 by Nutter]


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Yet we have the 9-year old Cyrus slut selling lingerie. Which people are happy to protect.


[edit on 14-2-2010 by Nutter]


Yeah and oddly enough i posted in the thread about the lingerie that it should be banned. The difference is because that involved real children. I think silo (and others) are unable to seperate fiction from reality.


+10 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
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]



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
No children involved = No grounds for charging him with paedophilia. Simple as that. People can sit and debate about their views on the material but not the legality of it.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Obviously a touchy subject.

If you can't keep it civil, and on topic the thread will not be long for this forum...

Name calling, opinions about members will stop now.

[edit on 2/14/2010 by seagull]



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Obviously a touchy subject.

If you can't keep it civil, and on topic the thread will not be long for this forum...

Name calling, opinions about members will stop now.

[edit on 2/14/2010 by seagull]


I completely agree, name calling does not solve anything.

silo13,
I apologize for calling you despicable and saying that "perhaps you need help.". It is obvious that we simply will not agree on the matter and so I propose that we agree to disagree. We are all entitled to our opinions no matter how diverse.

In any case, we can both agree that child abuse is wrong ... regardless of our definitions of what child abuse is.




[edit on 14-2-2010 by Nurv47]


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Hmm...my only response is..

show me the victim. for this to be a crime, there must be a victim.

Censorship is bad, m-kay. dont like his tastes in cartoons, then dont hang out with him, but this is like drawing a murder on a napkin...does that make him a murderer? they will always use "think of the children" to remove libertys of all. with this step, it will be anyone whom looks underage (considering manga/anime/hentai are typically not underage but quite often hundreds of years old in pixie type bodys and whatnot). Who decides what looks underage anyhow?
I look at society and basically anyone under 25 looks underage to me now..and I am not as old as some lawmakers whom view people up to 30 looking underage.

show me the victim or get out...no arguement on earth should ever be made against literally victimless crimes...this is thought police and if you think the law should start clamping down on peoples thoughts, then you are the one that needs to be clamped down on.

I say one more time...show me the victim



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
The man purchased the cartoons from Japan where they are legal but was prosecuted in the USA as he was a US citizen. Therefore the artists have not been imprisoned. If they were US citizens then they would have been.


Well, the US is extradititing Marc Emory (a Canadian) for selling hemp seeds to US citizens through the mail.

Marc is a Canadian and hemp seeds are legal there to sell.

What's the difference?



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13

I find the idea of these images disgusting but in the end no children were harmed.


I disagree.

Any form of material that portrays children as sex objects hurts children everywhere.

It doesn't matter what form the material is be it the written word, photography, crayon drawing or manga.

EDIT after reading the response below:

I repeat. Anything that portrays a child, as an object for sexual gratification is hurting children everywhere, in every culture in every part of the world.

You don't like my opinion, or don't agree I don't particularly care. My opinion will not change and it is not open for debate.

In my opinion people who condone the viewing of children as sexual objects, to be used for sexual gratification - IN ANY FORM - are as guilty as pedophiles themselves.

That opinion isn't up for debate either.

peace


[edit on 14-2-2010 by silo13]


wrong and i disagre with your opinion



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Well, the US is extradititing Marc Emory (a Canadian) for selling hemp seeds to US citizens through the mail.

Marc is a Canadian and hemp seeds are legal there to sell.

What's the difference?



I was not aware of that situation. It is no different and it is wrong they are doing that. I suppose it is like Gary McKinnon the UK hacker who is also being extradited.

Still we should keep it on topic and not about the practices of extradition for prosecution


+5 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Should we jail everyone who has watched "Twilight" too?

Think about it. An 80 year-old man (the vampire) having a sexual affair with a teenager.

How much more pedophilia is that? I say lock them all up. /sarcasm.

Edit: How about the author of the "Twilight" series? Producing child porn I say. Lock them up.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

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.





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join