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

I feel sorry for you as what a waste of a human life you are an example of.

Oh my insult/fact that you are so so fearful of men that you are likely a virgin into middle to old age is an insult that you can not understand.

That you wish all women to view men in a similar irrational manner is an insult you can not understand.

Off hand I would feel sorry for you but given the harm you are trying to do to men and women relationships sexual and otherwise I can not bring to feel that emotion.

BillRM's insults don't even make sense. They are too childishly divorced from the reality that other posters can judge for themselves--they just sound gratuitous and dumb.

even the problem of rape, really harms "men and women relationships sexual and otherwise" in your book, doesn't it?

OF course it does and we had cover why it is a bad idea give a woman the right to declare a rape had occur or not occur afterward if she been drinking at her whim.

Sorry if the rape laws put a damper on your sexual relations with women.

And sorry if the child pornography laws, and the possibility of "mandatory sentences" make you nervous too

There is no way that a rational mind can equate looking at a pic of a child with manslaughter

Considering that looker at children is considered a criminal for life (the sex offender registry) where as the killer is allowed a reasonable chance to rebuild his life the child pornographer is actually treated more harshly

the problem with these laws tend to be that they are abusive, they are cruel and unusual punishment.

Can you assess the degree of psychological and emotional damage, in terms of the profound violation of privacy, done to the child whose sexualized, exploited image is viewed over and over and passed from pedophile to pedophile?

Courts are now awarding millions of dollars in damages to the children in child pornography images, when these victims can be identified--to be paid by those who possessed and viewed the images.

Manslaughter is not considered an intentional act. The viewing of the image of an abused and sexually exploited child is an intentional act--an intentional act that continues the abuse and exploitation of that child.

Perhaps because a pedophile has a greater risk of re-offending than someone who kills another by accident or without intention to cause death? Pedophiles tend to repeat their crimes

The abuse and sexual exploitation of children used in child pornography is "cruel and unusual punishment" for the children involved--and that abuse is continued every time those images are viewed.

The laws are intended to have a deterrent effect.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime

the child suffers ZERO damage from something that she is never aware ever happened.

Do you have a supreme court ruling that allows for justice to use the recidivism rate of others to determine a citizen's sentence for his/her crime?

Some children who are abused are not damaged at all...

Taking pic of them is even less damaging. I have known a few young girls who were desperate for attention and thus loved to show off their bodies to men, I cant imagine that getting what they wanted would have hurt them.

You lack of logic is astounding. Abuse, by definition, is damaging.

efinition of ABUSE

1
: a corrupt practice or custom
2
: improper or excessive use or treatment : misuse <drug abuse>
3
obsolete : a deceitful act : deception
4
: language that condemns or vilifies usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrily
5
: physical maltreatment
See abuse defined for

Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect in Federal Law

Federal legislation provides guidance to States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g), as amended by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"; or


"An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."
This definition of child abuse and neglect refers specifically to parents and other caregivers. A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is younger than age 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.

You're not presenting rational arguments, you're denying the harmful and abusive effects of child pornography, for the children involved, including the harm that comes to them from the viewing of their images--harm to children which is acknowledged around the globe--simply based on your own emotionally determined, subjective views, which are very much colored by your own warped sexual appetites.

You are nothing more than a creep. And that is the generally held view of you at A2K. That you grandiously think you are anything more than a creep simply reflects how self-deluded you are

This is certainly a very active thread.

Woud it possibly be even better, if in a spirit of civility,
we all got our respective emotions under control
and stopped analysing one another's merits,
rather turning our attention to the topic? Maybe??





David

This definition of child abuse and neglect refers specifically to parents and other caregivers

How about you get your hea of of the gutter and try dealing with the matter up for debate Mkay?

How do you know that the children in child porn do not eventually become aware that their sexualized and exploited images are being circulated and viewed and re-viewed and re-viewed, while pedophiles masturbate over them?
And how do you know this awareness is not damaging to them?

I'm re-posting this because this is the reality of the topic...

Just from today's news, one can find these stories about teachers and child pornography