It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court: Dad can paste daughter's face on porn photo

page: 27
39
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Thepreye
Come on poster! what was there to be exposed until the weirdo made the image.


Flawed logic.

What was there to shoot someone with before the weirdo manufactured the gun... blah, blah, blah.


I think I'd be covered against this flawed argument with my prevailing norms, ethics and morality clause.




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
This thread has completely opened my eyes to just how critically deficient in morals people have become.


Man made law cannot prosecute and imprison
people based on morals alone.

If you feel this is wrong, then you need to write your
congressman and have him write a thought crimes
bill and present it to congress.

Then don't be surprised if you later get imprisoned
for another immoral act you only think about doing
but never put it into practice.

Just about everyone on this site has committed
a crime in their mind even though it may not have
been the same act that this man did. Now do you
want to go to prison based on what you think alone ?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye
I think I'd be covered against this flawed argument with my prevailing norms, ethics and morality clause.


Prevailing norm, ethics, morality etc. etc. is that doing something in private that doesn't harm anyone is "okay" (even if many people find it bizarre, disturbing etc. etc.).



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
then you need to write your
congressman and have him write a thought crimes
bill and present it to congress.




But dude he didn't just think he acted and made an image then proceeded to masturbate while looking at the image all the while thinking feverishly of putting his dick somewhere very very wrong, as an aside it would be interesting to know what the other members of this fellows immediate family, most of whom presumably previously loved him, think about the image, the act and the man.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by undiscoveredsoul
How could someone think such things about their own spawn? it's just ridiculously sickening, perverted and down right WRONG. It may not be illegal but it is morally wrong and the child should at least be removed from the environment NOW.


correct


but you can't prosecute and imprison
based on morals or thoughts alone.

Yes I would agree the man is sick
and needs to be kept away from
his daughter. But being a pervert
isn't a crime.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Society is losing rights it should not lose. At the same time gaining rights it should not have!



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans


Originally posted by Thepreye
I think I'd be covered against this flawed argument with my prevailing norms, ethics and morality clause.


Prevailing norm, ethics, morality etc. etc. is that doing something in private that doesn't harm anyone is "okay" (even if many people find it bizarre, disturbing etc. etc.).



Not when it involves paedophile imagery, at least not in the society where I live.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye
Not when it involves paedophile imagery, at least not in the society where I live.


Actual child pornography harms people, this wasn't.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Thepreye
 


reply to post by Thepreye
 


Are you saying that your excellent grasp of ethics and morality you boasted about earlier is based on mob rule?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Thepreye
Not when it involves paedophile imagery, at least not in the society where I live.


Actual child pornography harms people, this wasn't.


I'm more than happy to see paedo's imprisoned for life for having wanked to a cgi image of a completely fictitious child, in the UK you'll go to prison, not for life admittedly, for having cgi paedo porn on your pc.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye
But dude he didn't just think he acted and made an image then proceeded to masturbate while looking at the image all the while thinking feverishly of putting his dick somewhere very very wrong, as an aside it would be interesting to know what the other members of this fellows immediate family, most of whom presumably previously loved him, think about the image, the act and the man.


he was already prosecuted and convicted
of the other crimes. One of the charges
were dropped on appeal due to it being
a thought crime only.

the way I read this is, the man was convicted
of several charges. Later on in the appeal,
one of those charges were dropped due to it
being a thought crime instead of an act.

Morally wrong? Absolutely
Criminally wrong? Nope



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


Are you saying that your excellent grasp of ethics and morality you boasted about earlier is based on mob rule?



To keep it simple for you, No, see my post about laws and elected representatives.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Actual child pornography harms people, this wasn't.


I have a feeling this topic will be debated
for years to come. Both sides being equally
passionate about their opinions.

But just remember, when society opens
the door to the thought police,

we will ALL go to prison.

It is my opinion, that what you think about
is directly associated with God's law and not
man made law. On judgment day, we all will
be held accountable for what we think.
But it is not the right of man to play God.
That is reserved for the almighty.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint


It is my opinion, that what you think about
is directly associated with God's law and not
man made law. On judgment day, we all will
be held accountable for what we think.
But it is not the right of man to play God.
That is reserved for the almighty.


Yeah but, God doesn't exist really or at least he doesn't seem to be an interventionist god, and this is in no way the thin end of the thought crime wedge as our laws are enacted by our representatives who do so based on the prevailing.... yadayadayada.

If the govt has got so corrupt and powerful so as to use these laws, against the populations wishes, as an opening to a much wider remit of thought crime, then well they are that powerful that they don't need the wedge and we're all up sh!t creek anyway.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye
I'm more than happy to see paedo's imprisoned for life for having wanked to a cgi image of a completely fictitious child, in the UK you'll go to prison, not for life admittedly, for having cgi paedo porn on your pc.


Your issue really seems to be that you want to punish people for having a particular kind of fantasy, for being aroused by certain things, just because it bothers you (not because it harms anyone).

How do you feel about people who get aroused by the idea of being tied up or tieing someone up in a sexual context? How do you feel about people creating or reading depictions of such things?

Fiction is what we're talking about here, depictions of make-believe scenerios. Some people watch depictions of make believe murder and torture etc. etc. (you ever watch Law and Order, a horror flick, read a Stephen King book?) but apparently you don't have much of a problem with that.

This stuff is everywhere, if you start to criminalize it we'll all end up being criminals.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Any number of adults can get up to whatever skatty stuff they like as long as it's all consensual, I'm so broad minded sexually that kiddie fiddlin is about the only place I draw any line, even if it's all fantasy, I guess most folk in this particular guys town and family agree with me.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
In pre historic times age up until the middle ages age of consent was based on tribal custom or family authority. In 1891 legislation was passed in India to bring the age of consent up from 10 to 12 after the death of an 11 year old girl. Today age of consent ranges from indeterminate like prehistory to 16 depending on what country you are in. Incest has never been a traditionally condoned practice for obvious reasons and societies in which incest is endemic, have had observable social deterioration.

Humans are animals and as such are biologically programmed to be attracted to certain characteristics in a mate that indicate an increased chance of successful reproduction. In males one of these factors is age. In prehistory the average life expectancy was 30, so a young woman who had just come into fruition was the most desirable as they had the most chance of successfully raising a child to adult hood. As all girls develop at different times this placed the most desirable mate between the ages of 12 and 16. For females, attractants were the male's ability to hunt and to protect the family. Hence fit muscular men with tight abdominals and rear end, also considered signs of virility, were the most desirable. These men would have had to have proven skills in order to take a bride, placing them within an older age range between 16 and 25.

Modern views about age of consent are artefacts of moral standards that western culture in particular is indoctrinated with due to religion and social movements such as women’s liberation etc. Views that have been gradually pressed on to the rest of the world, such as with the 1891 legislation in India, which was under British rule at the time.

In my opinion we need to stop being hung up about numbers and focus more on child safety. There is a great deal of shame felt by genuine victims of sexual exploitation and by young humans without the right number engaged in sexual acts of their own choosing, told that they are not old enough to have made their decisions and are therefore wrong in some way. Even if it's "It's not your fault its his/her fault". They are asking the "victim" to consider the person for whom they may have felt genuine affection and possibly love, to be evil. Like wise the "sexual predator" is told he/she deserves to die, regardless of the actual situation.

There are obvious situations in which sexual predation of children is just that, sexual exploitation of under-age kids. Sexual assault on children that are biologically nowhere near being an adult, young adults who have been coerced into sexual acts by people who are just using them and outright physical attacks are all situations that have a black and white victim and perpetrator. Incest for example is completely unacceptable regardless of age, as parents are not supposed to have this mindset in relation to their children and if they do, quiet clearly there is something wrong with them. In the above case the daughter should be removed from the situation and both of them given psychological help, particularly the father, until such time as it was deemed safe, and the daughter felt safe enough to return. However in relation to age of consent, biologically it is a grey area and should be treated as such from a legal and moral point of view. There is a difference between a 15 year old girl with an 18 year old boyfriend and a child abductor stalking 10 year olds at the playground.
edit on 10-6-2011 by AusiAnarchist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Exactly, gay flicks, gore, s + m, pee, poop, all kinds of fantasies out there disgust me. So I choose not to look at it, easy. I don't expect these topics to be banned based on my personal opinions of them. There are a whole lot of people out there that don't care about trampling on rights they choose not to use, or disagree with. I am one that will not do that, I defend even rights that I find repugnant, like those westborough pricks right to protest on public property for example.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


The "DAD" is responsible. He is the one who asked his daughter to pose for him.....that's a DEED not a thought.
edit on 6/10/2011 by StealthyKat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by StealthyKat
 


Which is against the law, and found guilty of no? It is the making of pictures that is being debated, not that....
No one that I have read said that giving kids drugs and such is fine and dandy did they?
edit on Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:50:22 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join