Missouri Man Pleads Guilty To Possession of "Cartoon" Child Porn
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Who's principles? Why do their principles get to impose on someone who isn't imposing on others? Is the universe inherently take aback to the very notion of loli hentai, that the mere presence of it or positive thought of it in anyone's mind is an affront to reality itself?samahain said:Look. Pedophiles need to be treated. 3 years in jail should have been 3 years+ of counseling.
The fact he was hiding it from his wife says a lot
Sure there is no victim, but it's wrong on principles. Something that has long begun eluding poeple...
You have to go on whats tangible. Was anyone harmed? Is it within reasonable doubt that anyone could be harmed? If the answer is no to those things then the government has no place dictating here. Loli Hentai is a no on both counts.
Hmm, I'm of two minds about this, On the one hand, pedophilia bad, very very bad, but on the other, can this really be classified as pedophilia? It's all drawings, No one is actually involved other than the artist. And the claim that it can lead to pedophilia for real, well, that's pretty circumstantial and depends on the person involved. At worst, I think this guy should have been put into psychiatric evaluation, but seemingly the court system in america works on "Throw em in jail or shoot em dead."
Pedophiles need to be treated if they commit a crime and are dangerous. Pedophilia is not a crime, hurting children is a crime.samahain said:
This man has no actual child pornography that we know of, he has harmed no-one. He has erotic drawings, that's it. If he had actual child pornography I would have no complaints about this case.
Says what? That he was embarrassed about it?samahain said:The fact he was hiding it from his wife says a lot
It's also wrong on principal to jail a person for a crime you think he MIGHT commit. Has that eluded you?samahain said:
This reminds me of a thread that someone once created on this site that suggested combating child sex abuse/child porn by creating it artificially, therefore meaning there wouldn't be a need for the real thing in the first place. Thread got locked and the user who created it got permabanned.
Same principle here. People have been conditioned to go apeshit whenever the word "paedophile" is tossed about, to the point that people make no distinction between a paedophile and a child molester anymore. Principles? They're just prejudices.
Same principle here. People have been conditioned to go apeshit whenever the word "paedophile" is tossed about, to the point that people make no distinction between a paedophile and a child molester anymore. Principles? They're just prejudices.
Treated how? There's no cure, no "treatment" that actually makes them stop being attracted to children.samahain said:
Of course he was. People hide their porn stashes all the time. It's not something you advertise.samahain said:The fact he was hiding it from his wife says a lot
Perhaps, but that's not the government's call to make. They are not the moral police.samahain said:
It is an amazing phenomenom that anyone with an access to the internet, instantly becomes a qualified psychiatrist/legal-eagle/counsellor/physicist/doctor etc. etc.
There have still not been verified tests or research done into whether the depiction of drawn images exacerbates or counter-acts paedophillic behaviour, so we shall ignore the whole it makes paedophiles worse argument.
Now if we are going to look at it in a legal sense, with intelligence, we get to the stage where was there any harm caused by the accused gentleman looking at these particular images? I am sure we can all agree the answer is no, however will there be harm caused by sending him to prison? Well that would be yes, as even if he wasn't targeted for being a supposed paedophile (despite no child being harmed through his actions, other inmates might not understand this distinction) there would be a continuing stigma even after he has served his time and is seeking work in the future.
Also, saying it is principally wrong is not for anyone really to say, as many thinkers through all of time have had great difficulty ascertaining whether principles truly are universal, and we are facing the same argument as we still have with drawings/cartoons (in particular) of homosexual activity and whether it is banned from country to country.
There have still not been verified tests or research done into whether the depiction of drawn images exacerbates or counter-acts paedophillic behaviour, so we shall ignore the whole it makes paedophiles worse argument.
Now if we are going to look at it in a legal sense, with intelligence, we get to the stage where was there any harm caused by the accused gentleman looking at these particular images? I am sure we can all agree the answer is no, however will there be harm caused by sending him to prison? Well that would be yes, as even if he wasn't targeted for being a supposed paedophile (despite no child being harmed through his actions, other inmates might not understand this distinction) there would be a continuing stigma even after he has served his time and is seeking work in the future.
Also, saying it is principally wrong is not for anyone really to say, as many thinkers through all of time have had great difficulty ascertaining whether principles truly are universal, and we are facing the same argument as we still have with drawings/cartoons (in particular) of homosexual activity and whether it is banned from country to country.
Unless you're Secret Character, or any of the myriad other people on the video, I dunno how its personal. I was simply making the comparison of the similarities in arguments of artistic merit.Father Time said:
Either way it doesn't matter. Half of us read this as a man looking at imitations of child pornography, and half of us read this as censorship gone bad.
He shouldn't have plead guilty, this case never would have stood up in court. To answer chikusho's question...
It's simple, there CAN'T be. If there is no one who is victim to this "crime", then it cannot be called a crime, in this case the only person who has been wronged is this man.
And I don't care if he IS a pedophile, this blind societal hatred towards pedophilia is sickening, and anyone who thinks that popular culture, the media, or even laws (which by the way were made quite some time ago) are clear indications of how to align your moral compass, you need to find someone who can teach you how to form opinions, because conformity and rational thought are not the same thing. Just like pedophile and child molester are not the same thing.
On another note, since I'm sure someone reading this is going "Oh, so you support rape and/or child molestation. You're a pedophile". While I don't think there's anything wrong with them; I am not a pedophile; and no, I do NOT support rape and/or child molestation. Guilt by association is nonsense and exactly the reason why no one would stand up for this man in public, they'd rather watch him be crucified than even insinuate that perhaps no crime was committed, because even saying it wasn't his - now that the media has branded him a pedophile - is seen as defending a pedophile, and therefore being one, therefore being subject to unrelenting hatred.
I would get into the deep and dirty world of power and it's lasting effect on people's opinions, but I'll shorten the argument I would need to prepare to explain why I don't have blind hatred towards ANYONE at all into this: If anyone thinks that the reason why pedophiles are such a taboo has anything more to it than a few (and I mean less than ten) men of power suddenly deciding that's what the church should teach, you are horribly mistaken. There was no grand council of infinitely wise people who under the request of god himself(if you believe in a god) decided that children and adults don't make good partners.
This is why I feel sorry for this detachment of society who are likely to be shot if they tried to defend themselves; because it was by arbitration that they are condemned, and will be for some time longer - for something they can't help.
Wow, that could have been shorter...
It's simple, there CAN'T be. If there is no one who is victim to this "crime", then it cannot be called a crime, in this case the only person who has been wronged is this man.
And I don't care if he IS a pedophile, this blind societal hatred towards pedophilia is sickening, and anyone who thinks that popular culture, the media, or even laws (which by the way were made quite some time ago) are clear indications of how to align your moral compass, you need to find someone who can teach you how to form opinions, because conformity and rational thought are not the same thing. Just like pedophile and child molester are not the same thing.
On another note, since I'm sure someone reading this is going "Oh, so you support rape and/or child molestation. You're a pedophile". While I don't think there's anything wrong with them; I am not a pedophile; and no, I do NOT support rape and/or child molestation. Guilt by association is nonsense and exactly the reason why no one would stand up for this man in public, they'd rather watch him be crucified than even insinuate that perhaps no crime was committed, because even saying it wasn't his - now that the media has branded him a pedophile - is seen as defending a pedophile, and therefore being one, therefore being subject to unrelenting hatred.
I would get into the deep and dirty world of power and it's lasting effect on people's opinions, but I'll shorten the argument I would need to prepare to explain why I don't have blind hatred towards ANYONE at all into this: If anyone thinks that the reason why pedophiles are such a taboo has anything more to it than a few (and I mean less than ten) men of power suddenly deciding that's what the church should teach, you are horribly mistaken. There was no grand council of infinitely wise people who under the request of god himself(if you believe in a god) decided that children and adults don't make good partners.
This is why I feel sorry for this detachment of society who are likely to be shot if they tried to defend themselves; because it was by arbitration that they are condemned, and will be for some time longer - for something they can't help.
Wow, that could have been shorter...