OK To END CENSORSHIP TO END RAPE ?

That is what you get.

Does mean and insensitive pass for funny in Michigan, i forget, it has been a few years since my last visit.

0 Replies

I don't know, I don't count myself a native. I consider myself a citizen of life.

0 Replies

Anyway, if we can get back to the original post. I think OSD is trying to setup some sort of strawman argument here that creates a constitutional question. I'm not sure I completely understand it though, as presented.

0 Replies

Just how does a child 'volunteer' for pornography? Is a 10 year old capable of making that decision? What about a four year old.

Are you aware that the abuse of a child leaves longer lasting scars bycause the child hasn't had a chance to mature and to develop a strong personality that hasn't been twisted by a nightmare.

This is just wrong. There is no way to rationalize child pornagraphy. Even adult pornagraphy can be forced. No matter who does it or where it takes place, it is an inhumane way to treat any human being.

0 Replies

Rockhead wrote:

Hugs, BBB.

cj, it would be a good time to find somethin' else to do for a bit...

You are not authorized to usher
anyone out of this discussion.

David

0 Replies

I think this whole child porn discussion at A2K is just wrong on so many levels. I'm still hoping it's some sort of constitutional strawman test.

That said, BBB, again, what happened to you should happen to no one.

While I don't think a 4-year old should be armed, either, myself, Ted Nugent, and the NRA-IL have worked really hard to give victims and potential victims the best available tools to deter or thwart an attacker. I refuse to fight fair when I know I'm gonna get (put in nasty thing here). And I don't even care if you shoot the SOB in the back after the crime has been committed. But then, I'm weird....

0 Replies

Oh. My. God.

The level of pathology at this site is just over the top.

0 Replies

Do I bother you? I should. It's my intent to make your slow liberal brain actually think for a change, instead of choosing the easy way out all the time.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Anyway, if we can get back to the original post.
I think OSD is trying to setup some sort of strawman argument here
that creates a constitutional question. I'm not sure I completely
understand it though, as presented.

It did not occur to me to address the Constitution,
tho when I was a kid, if I had been prevented from
entering into contracts, I 'd probably have been outraged.
That did not happen.

However, to illustrate a matter of principle,
I set forth the following true biografical information:
since age 4, I abhored tobacco smoke
(the result of a psychosomatic aversion that I inflicted upon myself and still have).
I thought it was horrible for a person of any age to begin smoking.
Yet, as a child, when in grocery stores, I was outraged and semi-furious by signs
refusing to sell cigarettes to children (whom I strongly desired to avoid smoking).
I took this discrimination as an insult.

This thread is intended to explore human thought processes,
a life-long interest of mine.

David

0 Replies

Cjhsa, I think your sentiments are well meant there. But.. please don't use BBB's experience, testimony, in any way as a means to promote your views. I understand why she and others of us feel shaky, nauseous, reading these endless rape argumentative threads. I understand you're not for it - please don't use a personal disclosure.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I think this whole child porn discussion at A2K is just wrong on so many levels. I'm still hoping it's some sort of constitutional strawman test.

That said, BBB, again, what happened to you should happen to no one.

While I don't think a 4-year old should be armed, either, myself, Ted Nugent, and the NRA-IL have worked really hard to give victims and potential victims the best available tools to deter or thwart an attacker. I refuse to fight fair when I know I'm gonna get (put in nasty thing here). And I don't even care if you shoot the SOB in the back after the crime has been committed. But then, I'm weird....

Well, I agree with this post from cjsha. All of it. Maybe I'm weird too....

I don't think it's about the US Constitution on agrotes part since he's writing from England but I do think this question by David is intended to be more of an intellectual exercise as he has been very clear that he thinks rape and child abuse of all kinds are wrong.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Cjhsa, I think your sentiments are well meant there. But.. please don't use BBB's experience, testimony, in any way as a means to promote your views. I understand why she and others of us feel shaky, nauseous, reading these endless rape argumentative threads. I understand you're not for it - please don't use a personal disclosure.

And I agree with this too. (But I don't think cj was trying to exploit BBB's story for his own agenda though I see how it could be constured as such.)

I admire BBB for making such a painful confession. She has given us a known and loved voice that speaks to the horrible things being discussed on A2K of late. I feel honored that she shared her story with us.

0 Replies

Finding obscure connections, or trying to, is what A2K is all about.

0 Replies

Re: OK To END CENSORSHIP TO END RAPE ?
David you need to seriously seek counselling. Your predilection for guns and child pornography speaks volumes about your insecurities.

I hate buying into this thread.

But in purely logical terms: there is no causal link between pornography and rape. Don't grasp at straws to justify your insufficiencies as a human being.

What is happening to A2K? I support free speech, but these topics are being opened, repeatedly, and addressed in a manner that indicates a complete lack of empathy for anyone outside the original poster's own skin.

The only positive thing I can say about the posters is that the constant addressing these topics as a means for justifying their predilections indicates that somewhere in the back of their minds even they suspect there is something wrong with them.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I think this whole child porn discussion at A2K is just wrong on so many levels.

Please note that my support
for the Bill of Rights begins at the First Amendment.

I hope that u will post to indicate
how it is "wrong" to discuss any aspect of the law or of social policy.
That 'd be interesting.

Quote:

I'm still hoping it's some sort of constitutional strawman test.

I can 't remember ever applying a strawman technique.
I don 't believe that is in my rhetorical arsenal.

Quote:

That said, BBB, again, what happened to you should happen to no one.

The subject matter of this thread
is ENDING RAPE by deflecting the emotions that impel it,
toward non-living (photografic) objects.

Quote:

While I don't think a 4-year old should be armed, either, myself,
Ted Nugent, and the NRA-IL have worked really hard to give victims and
potential victims the best available tools to deter or thwart an attacker.

Yes.
Sadly, I do not believe that it is probable
that a 4-year-old is able to excercise (her) constitutional right
to bear arms in (her) own defense; I am not sure about the age.
So far as I know, this has not been tested.

0 Replies

This thread begins on a pretty witless premise. Leaving aside that there never has been any "laissez-faire" free market in the history of the world, the author completely misses the issue of informed consent. Child pornography, even if it is simply the images of naked children, and not of sexual acts, cannot possibly involve voluntary participation. Children cannot exercise informed consent--this is something that sick joker Agrote attempted to dance around all through his idiotic thread.

Children are incapable of informed consent, so you can never have a situation of " . . . children, none of whom were raped and all of whom were well paid for their services as photografic [sic] models and voluntarily agreed to do this work." Quite apart from that, i think it is hopelessly naive to think that paedophiles would eternally be content with simply the images of naked children, and that such a poorly conceived program could end the rape of children.

0 Replies

By the way, the poll is hopelessly warped (and stupid). One can either join in begging the question and agree that this half-wit program would end rape; or one can join in begging an inferential assertion, agreeing that one is in favor of censorship simply because it refers to sexual images or acts.

It's like the old "have you stopped beating your wife?" rhetorical scam.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
I think this whole child porn discussion at A2K is just wrong on so many levels. I'm still hoping it's some sort of constitutional strawman test.

That said, BBB, again, what happened to you should happen to no one.

While I don't think a 4-year old should be armed, either, myself, Ted Nugent, and the NRA-IL have worked really hard to give victims and potential victims the best available tools to deter or thwart an attacker. I refuse to fight fair when I know I'm gonna get (put in nasty thing here). And I don't even care if you shoot the SOB in the back after the crime has been committed. But then, I'm weird....

Well, I agree with this post from cjsha. All of it. Maybe I'm weird too....

I don't think it's about the US Constitution on agrotes part since he's writing from England but I do think this question by David is intended to be more of an intellectual exercise as he has been very clear that he thinks rape and child abuse of all kinds are wrong.

SO STIPULATED.
This can only be an intellectual exercise,
in that no one here has the power to change the applicable law,
but we CAN discuss the wisdom of it.

David

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

By the way, the poll is hopelessly warped (and stupid). One can either join in begging the question and agree that this half-wit program would end rape; or one can join in begging an inferential assertion, agreeing that one is in favor of censorship simply because it refers to sexual images or acts.

It's like the old "have you stopped beating your wife?" rhetorical scam.

In that case,
start your own thread, closer to your taste,
with your OWN poll.

David

0 Replies

Why should i? You claim that the first amendment is dear to your heart, so don't try to drive me off this brainless thread--i have a perfect, legal right to come here and point out how brainless it is. I also have no need to start such a thread because i don't for a moment consider that providing child pornography to paedophiles would end the rape of children, nor do i for a moment believe that the prohibition on child pornography constitutes unreasonable censorship.

0 Replies

OK To END CENSORSHIP TO END RAPE ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know