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

reply to post by ShadowZion

pedophile |ˈpedəˌfīl| ( Brit. paedophile) noun a person who is sexually attracted to children. ORIGIN from pedo- 1 + -phile .

Definition of child:

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty.

en.wikipedia.org...

So your own definition agrees with me.

reply to post by ShadowZion


Well if that is the case, then I suppose by the time we walk we all might as well be caged, since we all have such the capability to break laws.

reply to post by atlasastro


The advancements in technology have put us in an arena that begs for new laws. Like you state, it should now be illegal to show images of underage people in sexual material.

child | ch īld|
noun ( pl. children |ˈ ch ildrən|)
a young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority.
• a son or daughter of any age.
• an immature or irresponsible person : she's such a child!
• a person who has little or no experience in a particular area : he's a child in financial matters.
• ( children) the descendants of a family or people : the children of Abraham.
• ( child of) a person or thing influenced by a specified environment : a child of the sixties | OPEC was in a sense a child of the Cold War.


First question i need answered is

1) is this 13 year old child underage, for what has been done to her?
- you all should know my answer by now!

2) is it correct for the father to have done this?
- ""
3) would you do this yourself and find it acceptable?
-""
4) what would you do if this was your 13 year old sister?
-""
5) do find 13 an acceptable age to be doing acts of this kind - which is meant for adults and adults only
-""

if your 13 and your gf is 13 its a different story
if your the same age as your lover- it should be okay - even though it is not!
if this is your child- this is incest

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by ShadowZion

 

Well if that is the case, then I suppose by the time we walk we all might as well be caged, since we all have such the capability to break laws.

you make it seem as though i am saying it is the child's fault.

You are wrong, it is the adults responsibility to protect the child from such acts as this, we have all seen the effects films, music and other forms of media have on todays kids. There minds are simply a sponge, absorbing what ever information you tell to it.

We do all have the capabilities to break laws, but why should we, if it can cause harm to others (including this case to the child when she finds out what her father has done and what about the wife). people who think it is okay to go and commit these crimes are the people who end up hurting others.

And though they may laugh whilst they commit the crime, laugh no more once the hands of judgement and justice casts them down!

Would you do that to your daughter?

reply to post by ShadowZion


You are talking about crime. But masturbating to such pasted pictures in private does not harm anyone, thus it is not a crime. So again, what crime? There is no victim, there is no crime, and there is no punishment. And the court agrees with me.

reply to post by Maslo


Well the court is negligent and ignorant on this one. He went from fantasy and reality when he pasted the picture.

I only hope that he is pressed for his lunch and dinner for the remainder of his twisted, disgusting, broken life.

reply to post by ShaunHatfield

He went from fantasy and reality when he pasted the picture.

Irrelevant. There was still no harm done, no victim, and thus no crime.

reply to post by ShaunHatfield


So when someone goes from thought of murdering their jerk boss, to painting a gory picture of it in their livingroom, then they should be charged with a crime? If I go from thought about taking out the bilderburger crew, to writing a novel about it, I should be charged with a crime?

reply to post by Maslo


Only because there are no current laws prohibiting such behavior. Technology has brought us to this point. The victim is his daughter.

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Maslo

 

Only because there are no current laws prohibiting such behavior. Technology has brought us to this point. The victim is his daughter.

It is not a matter of technology. He could just as well cut up and paste her paper photo on some porn. As long as he just masturbates in private to his evil creations, there is no victim, and no crime.

reply to post by Maslo


I dont think an action needs to be witnessed for it to be a crime.

And as for all this discussion about legal or not legal. I really don't care, I do not run my life according to some governements "laws" But live by what I believe is moral and ethically right. So by that reasoning he is a nasty sick mutha that will pay karmically for a long long time

reply to post by spamfish

I dont think an action needs to be witnessed for it to be a crime.

If he was spreading them around, then I think it could be considered a crime, distributing or sharing such insulting and dishonoring photos could very well be illegal even if the victim is an adult, not to mention a minor. But in the article, there is only a possesion mentioned.

And as for all this discussion about legal or not legal. I really don't care, I do not run my life according to some governements "laws" But live by what I believe is moral and ethically right. So by that reasoning he is a nasty sick mutha that will pay karmically for a long long time

I understand, and tend to agree. But according to my morality, it would be immoral to punish him for this, because no harm was done. That does not mean I consider it right.

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Maslo

 

Only because there are no current laws prohibiting such behavior. Technology has brought us to this point. The victim is his daughter.

How exactly was she affected negatively and directly by his private actions that she knew absolutely nothing about?

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


His little picture eventually led to him trying to drug and photograph her.. The whole story should be taken into account when his execution...er I mean his sentence is read aloud.

He is broken... Toss him to the hogs like the garbage he is.... Every breath he takes is an insult to every abused child on this planet! END HIS BREATHING NOW!!!

Originally posted by Heliocentric



It's got everything to do with homosexuality.

I'm not talking about what type of sexual impulse or inclination or how they differ, I'm talking about how society considers them and acts upon them.
Go back two centuries in the Christian society, and homosexuality was considered as wile and abominable as paedophilia. Since then, our consideration of homosexuality has changed, and we've become more tolerant of homosexuals, even though it's work in progress, and many people still do consider it 'ungodly', 'unnatural', 'revolting', etc.
We still have zero-tolerance towards paedophilia though, even if they are - like homosexuals - people born with a certain sexual desire/inclination, deviation if you like.
None of them asked to become paedophiles, none of them chose it. Bin Laden chose to become a terrorist and mass-murderer, Bernard Madoff chose to become an embezzler.
We should punish intent, not genetics. Paedophiles have their cross to bear, they have to live all their lives suppressing their sexual desires. Some make it, some don't. No wonder many of them go nuts and become Catholic priests, they're so ashamed of themselves that they impose the strictest dogmas to be 'purified'. It's a lot easier being a shoe-fetishist IMO.

So,it seems you like to DEFEND those who molest children,and that is your right. Like I said,this ISNT about homosexuality. No where in the article did it say that.YOU brought it up,with your logic,to make it SEEM alright. We have LAWS on it. Dont like the Laws? Have them changed,to whatever preference you desire,and good luck changing them to pro-pedophilia. By the way,90+ percent in this world believe in some god. That also means they believe in some sort of scriptural law ,whether it be bible,or other religious doctrine. Being that you want to bring up HOMOSEXUALITY,Gods laws are pretty strict on it.If a priest doesnt like them,dont become a priest. I am not going to do your homework,to show you that is a FACT. That also doesnt include the Laws already in place,for PEDOPHILIA behavior.Personally,I have Gay friends. Their business is their own. Straight,or Gay,there is no need for pedophilia,and no reason to justify it.Unless you LIKE it,OR ADVOCATE IT.

Originally posted by Heliocentric
No, I never said that. I said that the western society has evolved. It's still custom to marry off 9 year old girls in Yemen. I don't like it, but somehow I understand it. They're more in tune with their ancestral traditions than we are. As I think Boondock-Saint pointed out, once upon a time, when life-expectancy was somewhere between 20-40 years, it made sense to marry as early as possible. Childhood was not a consideration in those days, survival was, but we can afford to let our kids be kids as long as possible.

This is the western world this happened in,right? Why are YOU bringing up Yemen? Why are YOU bringing up ancient times? With that logic,we should put "leaches" on the those who have bullet wounds.Life expectancy is WAY up,why are you even trying to promote ancient tradition,or a backward country? Your argument is as old as their customs to justify this.

Originally posted by Heliocentric
What studies are you talking about? Just some 'studies' you heard about on the internet or TV?

No real studies,that you dont want to hear about,or read about. Since you dont want to "just" hear it from me,or do you OWN homework.

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary).

A review article in the British Journal of Psychiatry notes the overlap between extrafamilial and intrafamilial offenders. One study found that around half of the fathers and stepfathers in its sample who were referred for committing extrafamilial abuse had also been abusing their own children

Child pornography is commonly collected by pedophiles who use the images for a variety of purposes, ranging from private sexual uses, trading with other pedophiles, preparing children for sexual abuse as part of the process known as "child grooming," or enticement leading to entrapment for sexual exploitation such as production of new child pornography or child prostitution.

In law enforcement circles, the term "pedophile" is sometimes used in a broad manner to encompass a person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims. These crimes may include child sexual abuse, statutory rape, offenses involving child pornography, child grooming, stalking, and indecent exposure. One unit of the United Kingdom's Child Abuse Investigation Command is known as the "Paedophile Unit" and specializes in online investigations and enforcement work.

LINK

Sorry,NO WAY you can justify it. Cant believe some still try though.

Originally posted by Heliocentric
It seems like you've got violent tendencies within you. You just threatened to take the law in your own hands and commit an act of violence. Both are serious criminal offenses that merit several years in prison.

Actually,I am human,so yes Violence is A WAY of life for the human race. Thought you knew? Besides,I HAVE children,and I would not want their innocence F'd up in any way. I would take my chances with a jury of peers. Thats MY right. NOBODY advocates pedophilia,UNLESS they like it. So since you want to JUDGE me on an internet forum,Ill call you out and say you are PRO- Pedophilia.

Originally posted by Heliocentric

But you're probably just using the internet and forums like these as a sewer for your dammed-up frustrations, as so many people are. Right?

As you are,JUSTIFYING Pedophilia. Kettle meet Black...............................................

reply to post by ShaunHatfield


Wrong, his lack of impulse control lead to that, not a picture he made....

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ShadowZion

 

i dont understand how any of you are trying to defend. if you are above the age of majority. you should not do anything with anyone who is under it. if you do its known as pedophilia and you go to jail for it.

Please, look up the definition of pedophilia, it is defined as attraction to prepubescent children. Nature also does not wait till 18, contrary to what many people here think. Bottom line is, you ought to wait until the girl is capable of giving informed consent, but that does not mean that attraction to younger girls is not normal. Biologically, it often is.

What do you mean its normal?? well i must be totally abnormal then cos i dont go looking at little girls licking my lips.... are you trying to tell us something? i'm getting the words....NONCE

reply to post by reg

What do you mean its normal?? well i must be totally abnormal then cos i dont go looking at little girls licking my lips.... are you trying to tell us something? i'm getting the words....NONCE

When secondary sexual traits are developed, it is normal to be attracted to such girl. This can be true even for some 13 year old girls, too. It is not normal to be attracted to ones own daughter, tough.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by reg

 

What do you mean its normal?? well i must be totally abnormal then cos i dont go looking at little girls licking my lips.... are you trying to tell us something? i'm getting the words....NONCE

When secondary sexual traits are developed, it is normal to be attracted to such girl. This can be true even for some 13 year old girls, too. It is not normal to be attracted to ones own daughter, tough.

its bloody abnormal to be attracted to your daughter, thats like saying a brother could be attracted to his sister. Now that is plain wrong.

Are their still hillbillys in America or summin!!!!