Yes, it is wrong to view child pornography.

Quote:

3) It is sad that the author of this thread raised an interesting topic,
concerning an interesting aspect of public policy and public perception
of that policy, but most of the posters have been UNWILLING
to offer objective analysis of the pros & cons of issues involved,
preferring to sling mud in ill-defined, emotional acrimony
instead of addressing (or even identifying) the issues.

Ummmm....... DrewDad started this thread.
You have it confused with the pro-child porn thread that agrote started.
This is the anti-child porn thread.

So WHAT ???????

Your ability to communicate seems confined to gushing mindless emotion,
and personal character assassination, rather than objective analysis of ANYTHING;
all u can do is dump liberal emotion.

I doubt that anyone can argue with u because u do not seem to have
the ability to reason.

I don' t need to know about your pathos; keep your pathos.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

So WHAT ???????

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your ability to communicate seems confined to gushing mindless emotion,
and personal character assassination, rather than objective analysis of ANYTHING;
all u can do is dump liberal emotion.

I doubt that anyone can argue with u because u do not seem to have
the ability to reason.

I don' t need to know about your pathos; keep your pathos.

Intrepid wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

So WHAT ???????

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your ability to communicate seems confined to gushing mindless emotion,
and personal character assassination, rather than objective analysis of ANYTHING;
all u can do is dump liberal emotion.

I doubt that anyone can argue with u because u do not seem to have
the ability to reason.

I don' t need to know about your pathos; keep your pathos.

Nothing that I said is inconsistent.
I stand by my question,
as to his point(lessness) in referring to personal insolence.


This is a waste of the potential of the forum,
which offers the ability to host rational discussion.

Instead we get this pointless drivel that is clearly off topic.

Its really sad.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

So WHAT ???????

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your ability to communicate seems confined to gushing mindless emotion,
and personal character assassination, rather than objective analysis of ANYTHING;
all u can do is dump liberal emotion.

I doubt that anyone can argue with u because u do not seem to have
the ability to reason.

I don' t need to know about your pathos; keep your pathos.

Nothing that I said is inconsistent.
I stand by my question,
as to his point(lessness) in referring to personal insolence.


This is a waste of the potential of the forum,
which offers the ability to host rational discussion.

Instead we get this pointless drivel that is clearly off topic.

Its really sad.

You got the sad thing right.

dlowan wrote:

You got the sad thing right.

Does that give u a sense of satisfaction ?
a sense of accomplishment to write that ?

Did u convince someone of something ?

Its just a waste of effort on your part.

dlowan wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

So WHAT ???????

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your ability to communicate seems confined to gushing mindless emotion,
and personal character assassination, rather than objective analysis of ANYTHING;
all u can do is dump liberal emotion.

I doubt that anyone can argue with u because u do not seem to have
the ability to reason.

I don' t need to know about your pathos; keep your pathos.

Nothing that I said is inconsistent.
I stand by my question,
as to his point(lessness) in referring to personal insolence.


This is a waste of the potential of the forum,
which offers the ability to host rational discussion.

Instead we get this pointless drivel that is clearly off topic.

Its really sad.

You got the sad thing right.

Does that give u a sense of satisfaction ?
a sense of accomplishment to write that ?

Did u convince someone of something ?

Its just a waste of effort on your part.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

dlowan wrote:

You got the sad thing right.

Does that give u a sense of satisfaction ?
a sense of accomplishment to write that ?

Did u convince someone of something ?

Its just a waste of effort on your part.

Discussion is all well and good around here......unless the subject is one that has been deemed verboten. The slap that you just received from dlowan is supposed to teach you to shut your trap about off limits subjects.

You can find as many special cases as you wish; it still does not invalidate the initial rule.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Ruleofthumb

Quote:

Rule of thumb
A rule which holds true for all normal members of a class, but admits exceptions.

"It is immoral to profit from an immoral act" would be considered a rule of thumb.

I doubt that you can show that viewing child pornography has some mitigating feature that exempts it from being immoral.

DrewDad wrote:

Go start a thread on how to define child pornography, if you truly do not know what it is.

Otherwise, be quiet while the adults talk.

It its very improper to tell that to an old man,
retired after over 35 years in a profession.


That does not speak well of u.
It seems to indicate a semi-hysterical state-of-mind on your part,
refusing to define your terms.

Quote:

3) It is sad that the author of this thread raised an interesting topic,
concerning an interesting aspect of public policy and public perception
of that policy, but most of the posters have been UNWILLING
to offer objective analysis of the pros & cons of issues involved,
preferring to sling mud in ill-defined, emotional acrimony
instead of addressing (or even identifying) the issues.

Ummmm....... DrewDad started this thread. You have it confused with the pro-child porn thread that agrote started. This is the anti-child porn thread.

That's what's so incredibly sad about people like hawk, agrote and you.

It's like you're missing some essential human quality. You're certainly missing empathy, but there's something odd about the way your intellects function re this (and rape, of course, in hawk's case).

It's interesting. I was talking to the police anti-childporn people, and later to the paedophile task force quite recently.

We were discussing the sadness that oozes out of peopple who think like you lot......it's like there's a black hole where parts of your hearts and brains should be.

It's sad.

dlowan wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

So WHAT ???????

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your ability to communicate seems confined to gushing mindless emotion,
and personal character assassination, rather than objective analysis of ANYTHING;
all u can do is dump liberal emotion.

I doubt that anyone can argue with u because u do not seem to have
the ability to reason.

I don' t need to know about your pathos; keep your pathos.

Nothing that I said is inconsistent.
I stand by my question,
as to his point(lessness) in referring to personal insolence.


This is a waste of the potential of the forum,
which offers the ability to host rational discussion.

Instead we get this pointless drivel that is clearly off topic.

Its really sad.

You got the sad thing right.

Does that give u a sense of satisfaction ?
a sense of accomplishment to write that ?

Did u convince someone of something ?

Its just a waste of effort on your part.

Yeah, I know.


That's what's so incredibly sad about people like hawk, agrote and you.

It's like you're missing some essential human quality.
You're certainly missing empathy,

but there's something odd about the way your intellects function
re this (and rape, of course, in hawk's case).

It's interesting. I was talking to the police anti-childporn people,
and later to the paedophile task force quite recently.

We were discussing the sadness that oozes out of peopple who think like you lot

......it's like there's a black hole
where parts of your hearts and brains should be.


It's sad.

It's more than sad when you act
on your beliefs, of course.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Go start a thread on how to define child pornography, if you truly do not know what it is.

Otherwise, be quiet while the adults talk.

It its very improper to tell that to an old man,
retired after over 35 years in a profession.


That does not speak well of u.
It seems to indicate a semi-hysterical state-of-mind on your part,
refusing to define your terms.

No, it seems to indicate that you write like a child.