OmSigDAVID: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?

Pot, meet Kettle.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Pot, meet Kettle.

Man. You'll believe anything about me, won't you. I clearly don't write with line breaks, incorrect spellings and various font sizes.

0 Replies

But you both believe in the absolute correctness of your values

0 Replies

What's the difference between "absolute correctness" and "correctness"?

Doesn't everybody assume that their values are correct? Does that mean they aren't willing to change their minds when they hear the right arguments?

0 Replies

Perhaps, yet even based on your very first post, I knew you'd never change your mind...odd isn't it, how such a prediction could be accurate?

(except that in cases of pedophiles and whatever you are, that prediction is always correct)

Same with David - he'll never change his mind, no matter what anyone else says.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

boomerang wrote:
Pot, meet Kettle.

Man. You'll believe anything about me, won't you. I clearly don't write with line breaks, incorrect spellings and various font sizes.

You can "write," but can you "communicate?"

Check my sig line for thoughts on "logic" and "thinking."

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Perhaps, yet even based on your very first post, I knew you'd never change your mind...odd isn't it, how such a prediction could be accurate?

But this is entirely false. I have changed my mind. Viewing free child porn funds child abuse (or at least, it runs the risk of doing so). It shouldn't be legal to view child porn. (But you shouldn't go to prison for it.)

I've clearly changed my mind quite a lot, largely due to what O'BILL told me about image-hosting on the internet. What I find odd is that it isn't enough for people to (quite reasonably) disagree with my controversial opinions. For some reason you all feel the need to believe that I can't be reasoned with and I will never change my mind about anything, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

0 Replies

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

vikorr wrote:
Perhaps, yet even based on your very first post, I knew you'd never change your mind...odd isn't it, how such a prediction could be accurate?

But this is entirely false. I have changed my mind. Viewing free child porn funds child abuse (or at least, it runs the risk of doing so). It shouldn't be legal to view child porn. (But you shouldn't go to prison for it.)
I've clearly changed my mind quite a lot, largely due to what O'BILL told me about image-hosting on the internet. What I find odd is that it isn't enough for people to (quite reasonably) disagree with my controversial opinions. For some reason you all feel the need to believe that I can't be reasoned with and I will never change my mind about anything, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

What do YOU think the penalty should be?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

What do YOU think the penalty should be?

This post may drive me to invent a way to stab people over the Internet.

Not to kill, but maybe just enough to draw blood.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

agrote wrote:
vikorr wrote:
Perhaps, yet even based on your very first post, I knew you'd never change your mind...odd isn't it, how such a prediction could be accurate?

But this is entirely false. I have changed my mind. Viewing free child porn funds child abuse (or at least, it runs the risk of doing so). It shouldn't be legal to view child porn. (But you shouldn't go to prison for it.)
I've clearly changed my mind quite a lot, largely due to what O'BILL told me about image-hosting on the internet. What I find odd is that it isn't enough for people to (quite reasonably) disagree with my controversial opinions. For some reason you all feel the need to believe that I can't be reasoned with and I will never change my mind about anything, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

What do YOU think the penalty should be?

Something that fits the crime. The consequences of viewing child porn are relatively small. When you look at a page of images, you run the risk of making very small contributions to the profit of child porn producers. That is obviously a bad thing to do. But not very bad. It's like buying an item of clothing from a company that uses child labour... you shouldn't do it, but it would be insane for us to send you to prison for it.

0 Replies

Quote:

But this is entirely false. I have changed my mind. Viewing free child porn funds child abuse (or at least, it runs the risk of doing so). It shouldn't be legal to view child porn. (But you shouldn't go to prison for it.)

I've clearly changed my mind quite a lot, largely due to what O'BILL told me about image-hosting on the internet. What I find odd is that it isn't enough for people to (quite reasonably) disagree with my controversial opinions. For some reason you all feel the need to believe that I can't be reasoned with and I will never change my mind about anything, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Sorry dude, unless you've changed your view that it is okay to 'view child porn where no harm is done to the child' then you haven't changed your mind about it at all - what you've done is ammend the circumstances in which you think harm is done.

Since I last viewed your posts, you've apparently changed your views on whether or not it should be legal, though I'm dubious.

You haven't changed your mind on whether or not it should be a jailable offence, which makes it laughable that you claim it should be illegal.

So let me ask you a question - what about viewing child porn obtained from a source like Limewire, Emule etc?

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
But this is entirely false. I have changed my mind. Viewing free child porn funds child abuse (or at least, it runs the risk of doing so). It shouldn't be legal to view child porn. (But you shouldn't go to prison for it.)

I've clearly changed my mind quite a lot, largely due to what O'BILL told me about image-hosting on the internet. What I find odd is that it isn't enough for people to (quite reasonably) disagree with my controversial opinions. For some reason you all feel the need to believe that I can't be reasoned with and I will never change my mind about anything, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Sorry dude, unless you've changed your view that it is okay to 'view child porn where no harm is done to the child' then you haven't changed your mind about it at all

I'm not sure that was my view. The main worry with viewing child porn isn't that it harms the child who appears in the porn, but that it gives child abusers a financial incentive to keep making child porn and thus keep harming children. It's not about harm being done to "the child". It's about harm being done to children (or to anyone else, for that matter).

I still think it is okay to view child porn where no harm is done full stop. I don't think an entirely harmless act can ever be wrong. But I've changed my view about whether viewing child porn is an entirely harmless act: I no longer think it is.

Quote:

- what you've done is ammend the circumstances in which you think harm is done.

Yes... to the extent that I can't really think of a circumstance in which no harm would be done (or at least, in which there would be no significant risk of harm being done).

Quote:

Since I last viewed your posts, you've apparently changed your views on whether or not it should be legal, though I'm dubious.

You haven't changed your mind on whether or not it should be a jailable offence, which makes it laughable that you claim it should be illegal.

Why? Are fines laughable? Community service? You need to bear in mind that the consequences of viewing child porn are quite minimal. The paedophile who views child porn contributes to the demand for it. He doesn't create the demand all by himself. It's like buying products from companies that use child labour: it's bad, and shouldn't be done, but it isn't so bad that each individual customer should be put in jail.

Quote:

So let me ask you a question - what about viewing child porn obtained from a source like Limewire, Emule etc?

What about it? If child abusers profit from - or are otherwise encouraged by - people downloading their child porn on limewire, then the act of downloading it is harmful. Whether that is the case, I don't know.

0 Replies

Limewire, Emule etc are peer to peer file sharing. Unless the 'child porn' comes with advertising, no one makes money out of it (that I can see).

Quote:

I still think it is okay to view child porn where no harm is done full stop.

As I said, you haven't changed your mind.

As it turns out, if you've followed the news over the years, many pedophiles are busted for hosting file sharing servers containing 10's of thousands of child abuse photos. They don't necessarily do this for money, but because they love sex with children. Others of course do it for money.

Child Porn results from serious harm to children. Supporting it in any way whatsoever is not acceptable.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
What do YOU think the penalty should be?

This post may drive me to invent a way to stab people over the Internet.

Not to kill, but maybe just enough to draw blood.

http://www.live-paintball.com/free_video_preview.cfm

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
What do YOU think the penalty should be?

This post may drive me to invent a way to stab people over the Internet.

Not to kill, but maybe just enough to draw blood.

http://www.live-paintball.com/free_video_preview.cfm

Er... what?

0 Replies

A few years ago a guy in Texas came up with an idea for Internet hunting, which was intended as a way for severely handicapped people who couldn't travel or physically go out in the woods to hunt the exotics on his ranch. It met such resistance that it never came to fruition, but the idea continues through paintball....

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Limewire, Emule etc are peer to peer file sharing. Unless the 'child porn' comes with advertising, no one makes money out of it (that I can see).

Okay, so it boils down to a question of whether child porn producers are non-financially encouraged by the number of downloads their material receives.

Quote:

Quote:
I still think it is okay to view child porn where no harm is done full stop.

As I said, you haven't changed your mind.

Why do you insist on seeing things in black and white? Yes, I still believe that nothing which is totally harmless can be morally wrong. But I no longer believe that child porn is typically a harmless activity, and I am no longer convinced that it is a morally acceptable activity.

Just because I haven't adopted your position on this matter, that does not mean I haven't changed my mind.

Quote:

As it turns out, if you've followed the news over the years, many pedophiles are busted for hosting file sharing servers containing 10's of thousands of child abuse photos. They don't necessarily do this for money, but because they love sex with children. Others of course do it for money.

Yes, well this is a grey area for me. A couple of weeks ago I would have said that downloading from file sharing servers is okay, because it doesn't have the effect of encouraging the producer to make more child porn. But I'm now less confident about my IT knowledge, and I'm reluctant to assume that the act wouldn't have this harmful consequence.

Quote:

Child Porn results from serious harm to children. Supporting it in any way whatsoever is not acceptable.

Beautiful rock formations result from terrible natural disasters that wiped out entire civilisations. Why is it unacceptable to admire that which results from serious harm to children, and yet acceptable to admire that which results from serious harm to entire civilisations?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Beautiful rock formations result from terrible natural disasters that wiped out entire civilisations. Why is it unacceptable to admire that which results from serious harm to children, and yet acceptable to admire that which results from serious harm to entire civilisations?

Come back when you've decided to join the human race.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know