• right now

  Adding your comment:

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  petethemeat
  January 29, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  yes, i respect the right to carry out a sentence (even in a law that i don't agree with) but I do think in this case the law's priority's have been dangerously mistaken.
• 
  TeChNoWC
  February 17, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  He is not a sex offender, correct me if I am wrong.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  Weydon
  February 9, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  It scares me that many people see those that view child porn as not DANGEROUS. First of all, that's a very dangerous road. If you look at lots of gay porn, you're probably interested in doing it with guys. If you look at sadomasochism, you're probably interested in trying it out with someone. If you look at kids, you're interested in doing it. You may not be able to control your desires, no matter how twisted, but you should not ENHANCE the desire to MOLEST.
  
  Secondly, SUPPORTING the child porn industry IS dangerous. Without money, it would be less distributed and funded for more abductions and rapes and scarring children. NOT DANGEROUS? I'm about to throw up.
• 
  petethemeat
  February 11, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  Honestly Weydon don't worry about him, Bugger off Tom (Tom is my brother who is only on this website to annoy me)
• 
  TeChNoWC
  February 15, 2007
  Edit | Reply

  Weydon

  So to ensure that a hypothetical danger is not spread further, we roast the dissidents. Anyone who has a shred of involvement. And because you were going to throw up gives the hate movement even more ethical credibility. Top marks, Weydon
  
  Weydon, the man was guilty of supporting the child porn industry, that I admit and he should be punished for his crimes. He was not able to foresee that his actions could inadvertently affect the safety of others, and that's a big no no. But not as big a no no as being a sex offender.
  
  Secondly, looking at gay porn or any porn for that matter does not give one the intentions or motivations to become a rapist. The biggest issue would be for those who succumb to thinking (dangerous mentality) that the child is eligible and has obliged to interact in such a manner, thus lowering the level of guilt involved. This is where most of the danger lies. If one can see that this is a ludicrous mentality, then one never recieves reciprocation, so its just like being sexually rejected, continuously. Hardly ever are rapists people who have been sexually deprived, rather people who are sexually aggressive. The big remaining issue here now is the child prostitution trade, where others may seek to find enactment for their inner desires. Yuck and sick I agree, taking advantage of a child like that. But yet again, the availability of this is limited, and people's consciences inflict blockage to these kind of practices, or it may be that these sort of strong desires are never even developed anyway. It can be a very private, introspective allurement.
• 
  Weydon
  February 20, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  "So to ensure that a hypothetical danger is not spread further, we roast the dissidents. "
  
  HYPOTHETICAL? We're not talking about a poor, poor man who feels attracted to kids and doesn't want to. We're talking about someone who has EMBRACED his attraction to CHILDREN. Defend their rights all you want, they're monsters unless they control themselves.
  
  "Anyone who has a shred of involvement. "
  
  YES. Anyone who has a "shred" (how insignificant, he just has a shred of child porn. Let's stop the real criminals and leave this supporter of child molestation alone for his so-called crime) of involvement in the defiling of innocent children should be punished.
  
  "And because you were going to throw up gives the hate movement even more ethical credibility. Top marks, Weydon"
  
  Your constant defense of these people--this one guilty of more than "So i saw a girl on the bus! I didn't wanna feel the way I did and I didn't do anything about it!" is throw-up worthy as well. Grow up. I don't care how bad you feel for these VERY UNHEALTHY people, you're being irresponsible, dangerous, and selfish by defending this man who had pictures and films of children being molested.
  
  "He was not able to foresee that his actions could inadvertently affect the safety of others"
  
  Being an idiot is not defense of a crime. He's not in a different country or state and didn't know jaywalking was a severe crime there. He's someone who gets off on the rapes of children.
  
  "looking at gay porn or any porn for that matter does not give one the intentions or motivations to become a rapist"
  
  Looking AT THE RAPE OF CHILDREN IS VERY MUCH that.
  
  
  "for those who succumb to thinking (dangerous mentality) that the child is eligible and has obliged to interact in such a manner, thus lowering the level of guilt involved."
  
  LOWERING THE GUILT? Yes, so it's possible this man thought the kids in his kiddie porn collection WANTED it. THAT'S why he shouldn't be locked up. Because he thinks kids want it. That's not dangerous, right?
  
  "But yet again, the availability of this is limited, "
  
  YET AGAIN? Yet again. Unbelievable! Had it been READILY available and he had that to "enact his inner desire", he'd simply be doing a WORSE crime. He's not only supported the trade of child porn rings, but actually purchased the use of a child sex slave. What is WRONG with you?
  
  "and people's consciences inflict blockage to these kind of practices"
  
  Rightfully so!
  
  "It can be a very private, introspective allurement."
  
  I have become a man of peace more than ever in my life. I have found solace and am content. I wish to do all I can to avoid violence when possible. But had we been in person right now, I would be back to square one. I can't believe you are a human being uttering these words.
• • 
    petethemeat
    February 21, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Calm down Weydon, sometimes you go too far and your usually clever arguments become sullied by the tantrums you throw, like at the end of the last post.
  • • 
      Weydon
      February 22, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      I don't feel very much unjustified in my stance. I don't know why I'm the only one seeing it, sometimes I read into things deeply, but it's pretty blatant. He's beyond a sympathizer for these disgusting monsters of humans. This is far from the first time we've had lengthy debates of their "rights" and how they're "victims", often on unrelated topic. They're the worst a man could ever become.
      
      But you do have a bit of a point, pete. I really am trying to live without getting hotblooded, and this anonymous debate is no reason to to get angry. I mean, what's happening IS, but there's not a thing I can do about it. So I will just withdraw from this disgrace of a "philosophy" and try to think of it no more.
    • • 
        petethemeat
        February 23, 2007
        Edit | Reply
        What would you feel if the man had owned pictures of molested children, but lets say they were drawn so no real children were hurt. What would you think of that?
      • • 
          Weydon
          February 24, 2007
          Edit | Reply
          It would be mildly less bad because--somewhat likely--no kids were actually raped for this to be made. Still, it's creepy as all hell and implies the person creating and viewing it is making no attempt to suppress their desires to molest.
          
          Porn and masturbation may be a fairly reasonable way to hold yourself back from doing it with someone else for chastity or loyalty to someone--but to imagine molestation is something different. It's beyond dangerous and harmful. Saying it's ok for a pedophile to leer over this stuff and jerk his stuff is like saying it's ok for a serial killer to obsessively plan out and simulate his murders. There's something wrong with these people. For whatever "victimized" reasons, they get off on inflicting the worst kind of harm. Boo-hoo for them. They should not and CANNOT be pandered to.
• 
  TeChNoWC
  February 21, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  "LOWERING THE GUILT? Yes, so it's possible this man thought the kids in his kiddie porn collection WANTED it. THAT'S why he shouldn't be locked up. Because he thinks kids want it. That's not dangerous, right?"
  
  Maybe if you had read my post properly, you would notice that I was not condoning the action, but merely giving reasons as to why a a man with at least a hint of morality could be succumbed into feeling less guilty about enacting such things, and thus the burden is lifted, which gives the uncontrolled mind free reign.
  
  "HYPOTHETICAL? We're not talking about a poor, poor man who feels attracted to kids and doesn't want to. We're talking about someone who has EMBRACED his attraction to CHILDREN. Defend their rights all you want, they're monsters unless they control themselves."
  
  We are all monsters, Weydon. The sin of man is ever before him, and the heart of man is that of evil. Yet, we have a spirit that still mourns, can be hurt, a humanity that defies even the most evil and vile of people, yet to what degree we cannot always be sure. And every person also harbors a redeemable quality, an enabling, under Jesus' covenant of love, to be redeemed. This is an inside redemption, not a means to evade societal punishment, merely our attitude towards the recipient. Bottom line? We are all monsters that cannot escape our inner weak defenseless, child state. Your abhoration of people is unevenly distributed regarded to your personal judgements. I stand accused, I myself am guilty of this crime too, it is something I need to readily work on.
  
  "Your constant defense of these people--this one guilty of more than "So i saw a girl on the bus! I didn't wanna feel the way I did and I didn't do anything about it!" is throw-up worthy as well. Grow up. I don't care how bad you feel for these VERY UNHEALTHY people, you're being irresponsible, dangerous, and selfish by defending this man who had pictures and films of children being molested."
  
  Plenty of people will defend the upright, the innocently abused; women, blacks, children, retarded, old, socially inferior etc etc. Good for it and I support it with great enthusiasm, however, I am yet to see great defense for those who are no longer considered worthy of such redemption, yet in God's eyes they are the closest to needing it. I may be very wrong in defending the ideal proposed in the topic. But I will never admit wrong in simply being a voice for those that you wish to label 'monsters', that you cast away in your attempt to rid yourself of your disgusts, not by what is best but by what is most pleasing. If you are accusing me of defending a man's claims to be free, fair enough, it may be very irresponsible of me to do so. But if you were denying me the right to defend a spiritual need, you will convince me no further.
  
  "Being an idiot is not defense of a crime. He's not in a different country or state and didn't know jaywalking was a severe crime there. He's someone who gets off on the rapes of children."
  
  Your right. Ignorance doesn't get you out of trouble. Yet, if for ignorance, I would question the claim that one is "evil" and unredeemable, and an absolute danger to society for the rest of their lives.
  
  "YET AGAIN? Yet again. Unbelievable! Had it been READILY available and he had that to "enact his inner desire", he'd simply be doing a WORSE crime. He's not only supported the trade of child porn rings, but actually purchased the use of a child sex slave. What is WRONG with you?"
  
  It simply means that people who are half desperate enough to try and and take what they believe is a 'moral' route won't be able to find one, simply meaning that their chances at being a danger are limited, within reason. Intention doesn't amount to punishment, it does however amount to the need to commit to the ideal of safety for the greater amount of people. And the most immediate prevention strategy behind this? Not allowing the man to be near children. Another strategy to prevent the infliction of hurt. And so low distribution has this affect also, whether it sounds sinister or not, it is a simple fact.
  
  If he attempts to increase this availability, then he is certainly guilty of a very heinous crime (yet again, not rape).
  
  "Rightfully so!"
  
  Amen to that.
  
  "I have become a man of peace more than ever in my life. I have found solace and am content. I wish to do all I can to avoid violence when possible. But had we been in person right now, I would be back to square one. I can't believe you are a human being uttering these words."
  
  If you can't handle the truth, fine. If it disgusts you, pithy to that. Not once have I condoned any of this, and stop treating me as if I have. If you wish to be ignorant, then power to you, I feel as if I have been too unclear in my references and classifications of this man compared to what could be instead of what simply is, and I apologize for that, however, I'm not going to lie out of discretion.
  
  It is very hard to bring oneself to a place where they feel comfortable with and see any justice in defending the claim of an accused. There seems to be a rigid, prejudicial, black and white understanding of how all accused should be treated, and I understand this behaviour and this need for security as well as a certain disgust. It is hard indeed to convey a need to put into perspective acts that seem so vile, but it needs to be done, where I fail you can help pick me up. Trying to stay on the fence becomes hard because generally a person always will stray too far in whatever direction, whether it be that continued defense or justice, and I feel I too may be swaying far away. Naturally when opposition arises one delves deeper into escaping this opposition and thus directs themselves further into a pacifist notion for a harsh and misguided venture, yet I feel it needs to be done, or people who, although with seemingly little right to be heard, will simply never be heard at all, and society will go at lengths to increase unwanted thought -said agendas to the point of absolute segregation, insanely even to the merely innocent. It's wrong, I know, this man needs to go to jail. But when I see the plight before him, shit, how scary. No man, no matter what, should have to face the burden of such an absolute degradation, especially if the crime has not been put into it's rightful perspective.
  
• 
  Applehead
  February 21, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  Wow well said Tech, didn't think Id be agreein with you on this topic after last time but yeah, people need some support from somewhere if they have any chance to live acceptably in society, so long as they recognise that they may need help. If not then we could have problems.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free