Seanchaidh said:
Baby bath pictures are not "lascivious exhibition."
well now that depends on the context of the photo doesnt it? and since none of us have SEEN the photos than we cant make any kind of a judgment, either for or against.
faceless chick said:
Wyatt: didn't YOUR parents ever take pics of you as a baby naked?
Everyone else seems to have some of these lying around.
no acutaly they didnt, but then again my parents didnt need too snap a picture of everything i did as a child. though i will say (and have said) that i dont actualy find anything wrong with 'grandmas bathtime photos'
ill say this again for your thickheads that just dont seem to get the basic point here. this issue isnt a PC one its about the welfair and safty of children. there is no such thing as 'going to far' when it comes to stoping child abuse. its not about being politicaly correct its about stoping an entire childhood filled with abuse and an entire lifetime of pain because of it.
i agree that naked picrtures of babys in a bathtub are generaly harmeless. MY issue is with those times when they ARENT harmeless and are a sign of abuse. and since taking naked pictures of children has no benifit what so ever other than future embarassment of your child then we can simply say dont fucking do it. then we dont ahve to have arguments like this one. and the people taking pictures of children arent given the benifit of the doubt and arent able to hide behind vague legal definitions.
child abuse needs to be stoped period, and if part of stoping it means that grandma doesnt get to snap that pic of your cute lil bum in the bath than so be it. if part of sto0ping it means that 'innocent parents' get investigated for snaping pictures of their kids and taking them too wal-mart and those pic being of such a nature as to alarm both the wal-mart worker and the local CPS to the extent taht CPS pulls the children from the home than so be it.
all the argumenst i see here are along the same lines of saying we cant outlaw nuclear weapons because the workers who make them will lose their jobs. your saying we cant put a stop to child porn because granma wont have that pic to embarass you with when your older.
Laze said:
Not going to quote the huge wall of text that Wyatt posted.
Wyatt, you can't really spell or form a coherent sentence, and therefore your argument that somehow you know so much about law enforcement that they absolutely must have seen something that didn't get reported - it just doesn't convince me.
You're pulling a dictionary definition of child pornography without realizing that the "porn" part comes in, with any pornography, when the "lascivious parts of the body blah blah blah" is distributed for people to entertain themselves with. The parents didn't distribute it.
And I understand that you believe the children should be protected. What I'm saying is that the authorities should have done a proper investigation and actually done what most people call "police work" instead of a raid without evidence. This would have both prevented potential pedophilia and avoided having to take the kids away from innocent parents for over a month, which is the optimal result for protecting the kids.
I'm not claiming that the authorities acted like morons. I'm claiming that they acted like very intelligent, organized groups that enjoy power and often act on that power in order to justify keeping it. And that's OK when the acts are justified, but scary when raids start happening without evidence.
To the posters above responding to Wyatt and co., I totally agree, the public fear of pedophilia is totally out of proportion to the actual amount of pedophilic acts.
if your not smart enough to understand what im saying then dont bother replying anymore since your clearly not smart enough to have a conversation with me in the first place, you can take your spelling snobery and stick it right up your ass as far as i care.
now the 'dictionary definition' isnt anything of the kind. ive taken my statment right from 18 U.S.C. Chapter 110, the US laws that prohibits its. and no place in that law does it say anything about it haveing to be "distributed for people to entertain themselves with". child porn is illegal even if no one but the person taking the picture ever looks at it. its illegal even if the person TAKING the picture never looks at it and leaves the film in the camera undeveloped. its the act of taking the picture of a child in a lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area that is illegal , NOT whats done with the pictures as you would ahve us belive.
now once again you ignore or arent smart enough to grasp the point in between your trips to the spell checker, but ill try this agian. the authoritys had evidence in hand. the photos themselves where that evidence and were obviously of such an alarming nature that the CPS workers were compelled to act on THAT evidence ALONE and remove the children. nakid pictures of children are probable cause enough to warrent removal of children from their home.
you would ahve us belive that its a good idea if you pull someone over in car and their eyes are glassy and you can smell pot that they should be left free to go untill a 'proper investigation' can be conduected i guess. they should be free to drive home untill the blood tests come back? please .........
and fianly the optimal result for protecting the kids is doing just what the CPS did, remove the children and stop any potential abuse from going forward while the 'investigation' you call for was conducted. i ask you this, what if it turned out the parenst WERE abusing their children, would it be a good idea to give those parents a warning so that they could destroy evidence or even take the children and leave the area? would it be 'optimal' for the children to LEAVE them in the abuse for even a month more while CPS conducted the 'investigation' your howling for?
i say no. and im willing to bet a large chunk of cash that the courts will say no too. now you can toss as much bullshit up as you like about the 'powerhungry system' all you want but its just taht, bullshit. untill you can show me WHY the CPS case workers chose too pick THIS couple out of what is most likly tens of not hundereds of reported cases each week to abuse their power on then your just spewing nonsense at this point.
who does this agency have to justify keeping it TOO? do you have some information that the rest of us lack about this agency being under threat of being shutdown or something unless they started showing more arrests, or child removals, or catching more pedo in the act? was their job cuts in the works if their conviction numbers werent improved? was the government going to cut off funding if they didnt start tossing more 'innocent parents' in jail? if you have information like this than by all means share it because it WOULD be relivent, but so far you have just posted noise.
i think you need to go back to working on improving your spell checker and leave the debates too those that can actualy think about an issue and not just spew nonsence and call it informed opinion.