Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

Well, Pinochet was at least a fascist. And gave haven to hundreds od Nazis, who were his trustees killing at least 3,000 innocent people and torturing tenthousands.

Never mind, pay homage to the tyrant, David.

Thank u for that information, Walter.
Upon the basis of what information
have u reached that conclusion ?




Well, killing the communist enemy was a very good & valuable thing to do, Walter,
as the people of Cuba have found out. Thay did not do enuf of that.





David

That's why their health system and life expectantcy is better than America's. The main problem Cuba faces isn't Communism, but the American embargo. I always try to buy Cuban coffee when I get a chance. The cigars are still the best in the world, and it's a fantastic place to visit for a holiday

Is it a BLESSING
for a slave to have a long life expectancy??????? I don 't think it is.




For May Day or for Marx's birthday??

Just a holiday, normally the summer holiday, although winter breaks are quite good as well. There's a brilliant Hemingway museum.

The 4th Of July ?????

What's so special about 4th July? The school holidays don't start 'til much later, but it's probably a bit cheaper then, and you won't get so many kids about.

Its the summer holiday.

Just one day? We normally take a fortnight off.

My basis is that I can see, hear and read.
(Pinochet's military government did away with elections, political parties, free speech, Congress, unions, and civil liberties.

actually no according to firefly you would not - she distinctly said that looking at a girl walking by does not equate to child porno. You really love to just pick one small point (that everyone agrees is not child porn) and say it over and over. It simply makes you sound like an idiot that is incapable of reading and understanding a basic premise.

exactly and common sense is what we are lacking from a select few here.

Fool the question was is a man who look at a fully develop under age 18 female in a sexual manner should be consider a pedophilia or not.

Having nothing directly to do with child porn.

It's not something that would be considered healthy, but you're more concerned about satisfying your primitive urges, and to hell with the effect on the victim.

So looking at a 17 years of walking by in shorts and a tight top is turning her into a victim however on her 18 years old birthday she would no longer be a victim?

Strange thinking indeed but that is the whole problem with our crazy sex laws.

Or a man looking with some lust in his eyes at any woman turn her into a victim even those far more then one woman over the decades had told me that they enjoy being check out within limits.

You know there come a point in the level of punishment for a crime where the punishment itself if far more evil then the crime.

In the case, of the young college student sending him to prison for years for having two thumbnail files on his computer of two 14 or so years old girls that are not taking part in any sex act but are just naked is a moral crime far worst then having the files.

Once more I had no problem with punishing people for having child porn however there should be some common sense in the punishment levels.

As they have done in past threads relating to any type of sexual assault/abuse/crime, both Hawkeye and BillRM take the positions that either no crime really occurred {denial), the victim is lying, the person charged with the crime is the real victim, this is unfair persecution by the government, the laws are wrong and unfair, and on and on.

In other words, they push their views that either no one ever commits a sexually related offense and the jails are filled with innocent people, or we should eliminate or change the laws so that the crime will no longer exist, and the punishments should be minimal, if given at all. And it doesn't matter whether the crime in question is rape or child pornography, they will chant the same mantra. Questions of morality, about one person abusing or harming another when they commit such crimes, are either totally overwhelmed by their pity for the accused and convicted sex offender, or simply ignored by them.

And, because they operate with a preconceived agenda, that focuses on the accused or convicted as the 'real victim' of such crimes, they both significantly distort factual information in their posts, post information that is only half truths or downright inaccurate, and often misinterpret the material that they themselves post, simply to further their insubstantial arguments. And they ignore anything to the contrary that others post which would discredit their arguments. And all of that has been true in this thread, as well as the others.

Let's take the sentences given for possession of child pornography, for instance. BillRM has been carrying on about "unfair minimum sentences of four years", which is an inaccurate distortion of the truth because he is choosing not to mention that he is referring to only federal law, and not to the state laws which have penalties as low as probation for that offense, and most people are probably prosecuted under state law . But, if he presented the whole truth, he couldn't make a case for "crazy laws". And BillRM, who ignorantly carries on about laws he has never even read, which is why he can't post verbatim extracts from them, is apparently unaware that the federal minimum sentences are 5 years, and not 4. And, if he'd bother to follow the news stories, to find out what sentences in these cases are actually being handed out, he'd find that, even in federal cases, people are often sentenced to less than 5 years on the basis of plea deals. This very current case, where the man received 36 months, is an example of that.

Unlike other types of sex-related crimes, the evidence in child pornography cases is generally objective--the child pornography actually exists and was found in the person's possession, or there is evidence it was sought, or received, or had been in the person's possession. That makes it tougher for Hawkeye and BillRM to assert that the innocent are going to jail, but it doesn't stop them from trying, so instead they have been carrying on about the laws, the sentences, and the big bad bullying government. They have also tried to trivialize the possession of child porn as a crime of abuse against children by asserting that the viewing of such images doesn't affect the victim shown in such images, or by claiming that most of the images labeled as child pornography are harmless and not sexually explicit (now how would they know that unless they viewed child pornography? )

Those who are sexually aroused by children are pedophiles, and only pedophiles have an interest in seeking, receiving, viewing, and collecting, child pornography. And a significant number of those people also sexually abuse real life children, although that is not always the case. But these consumers are part of the chain of child abuse and exploitation that begins with the creation of these pornographic images--the images were created for them--and each time they view these images, for purposes of their own sexual gratification, they are continuing to sexually exploit these children, violate their privacy rights, and, create the demand to keep this industry thriving. And they are knowingly breaking the laws prohibiting such activity.

We have good reasons for criminalizing child pornography, and for wanting to remove many of these pedophile consumers from the streets, and for wanting the sentences to send a warning message to others. Unlike Hawkeye and BillRM, most of us place our primary concern on the welfare of innocent children, both the children depicted in these pornographic images, and the children who live in our communities. We do see this as a moral issue, as well as a legal one, and we want to protect children from harm and sexual abuse. For most of us, this is a no-brainer. Child pornography is illegal around the globe.

What I have found particularly distressing is the number of people being arrested for possession of child pornography who work in jobs where they have daily contact with minors. In the last day alone, I have found current news stories that related to the arrests or convictions of teachers, a pediatrician, a Boy Scout leader, a school janitor, and a school coach, for possession of child pornography--and I wasn't even trying to search very hard at all. Not only does this information make me feel creepy, because these people are around children all the time, it reinforces the fact that these pedophiles do not conform to a particular stereotype--it could be almost anyone, including a previously married father, like the college professor whose arrest sparked the creation of this thread.

While there is certainly room for discussion and debate of issues connected with this topic, it should be honest debate, debate that does not trivialize the topic or the damage done to children, debate that does not grossly distort factual information, debate that does not include fabricated hypothetical situations that defy common sense, and debate that is directed at trying to discuss and not to simply win an argument. When Hawkeye and BillRM can debate on that level, they might be worth listening to--right now, they are a long way from that.

BULLSHIT......my position is that our collective approach to sexual regulation is foolish and abusive. I further argue that our sexual requlation scheme has been corrupted by the feminists and has thus become a prime tool in their toolbox as they pursue the oppression of men. It is furthermore my argument that justice for all trumps what ever sexual regulation schemes we have and so when we find our current program abusing individuals and subverting justice under the arguement that the ends justify the means then we need to put an end to the error.

Rape is a heinous crime, too, and everyone knows how difficult it is to get a conviction.

Murder is a heinous crime. Anyone heard of OJ Simpson?

Bwahahaha!

You should consider moving to Africa. Seriously.