17
   

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

NSFW Forums: News, Pervert, Child Pornography, Perverts, Creeps
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
firefly
 
  2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 12:29 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
The REAL issue is whether government has been guilty
of a shocking USURPATION of power qua what its creators can POSSESS,
including drugs or even anything to look at.
It simply was never given that power.

The Supreme Court has upheld the power of government regarding distribution and possession of child pornography--the rulings have been previously cited in this thread.

What's shocking is that children are being sexually abused and sexually exploited in the production, distribution, and viewing of their images in such material, not that the government is trying to control it.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 01:01 pm
@firefly,
DAVID wrote:
The REAL issue is whether government has been guilty
of a shocking USURPATION of power qua what its creators can POSSESS,
including drugs or even anything to look at.
It simply was never given that power.
firefly wrote:
The Supreme Court has upheld the power of government regarding distribution and possession of child pornography--the rulings have been previously cited in this thread.
That is accurate.
This result is inconsistent with the known history of the Constitution.
In other words, the USSC has been complicit in the usurpation.


firefly wrote:
What's shocking is that children are being sexually abused and sexually exploited in the production, distribution, and viewing
Firefly, to my mind, that seems like saying that 2 x 3 = 13.
It does not make sense, so far as I perceive your meaning.
HOW does it abuse and exploit them??
In other words, what is the reason that a young person
shoud CARE about it?

I ask myself: when I was a kid, making love during my childhood,
if I found out that someone had taken pictures of me, shoud I care about it?
I rather doubt that I 'd have gotten much upset about it.
I believe that I 'd probably not have cared more than I did
when someone took a picture of me from behind me in a hospital in 2005.
I was surprized when it happened, but not angry, nor vengeful.



firefly wrote:
of their images in such material, not that the government is trying to control it.
Loss of personal freedom to usurpation shud be shocking and it is intolerable.

Has your mood changed yet, Firefly, against commenting on those 2 videos
addressing the wisdom of making statements to the police ???




David
firefly
 
  2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 02:01 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
In other words, what is the reason that a young person
shoud CARE about it?

Because it is a violation of their privacy. And courts have granted such victims the right to sue for psychological and emotional damages, and some have sued, and all of this has been previously discussed in this thread--why keep re-hashing it?
Quote:
when I was a kid, making love during my childhood

You were sexually active as a child?
Quote:
Has your mood changed yet, Firefly, against commenting on those 2 videos

Not yet.





BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 02:35 pm
@firefly,
The problem with US federal child porn law is not that it exist or for the law calling for punishment for having such porn but not having or allowing any common sense in what it cover and the level of punishment.

There is no sane reason for having minors who created pictures of themselves to be share with their lovers to be cover.

There is no sane reason to not to have levels so pictures and videos of late teens willingly having sex is not the same crime calling for the same punishment as having pictures and videos of young children/infant being sexually abuse.

The level of punishment is insanely harsh when the minimum sentencing guide lines call for a greater time in prison then for the maximum sentencing for manslaughter in the state of California for example.

The story of the professor who firefighters decided to invaded his privacy and go through his 1970s collection of porn for their own enjoyment and on the bases of one magazine out of a large pile he is facing state charges and could be facing federal charges is an example of how insane our laws are in this area.

Once more I am for cutting and pasting more sane laws that exist in other countries such as the UK.

We should reserve long long prison sentences to those who harm children directly not enjoy looking a pictures no matter how sick we feel such behaviors happen to be.



izzythepush
 
  2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 02:48 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
The story of the professor who firefighters decided to invaded his privacy and go through his 1970s collection of porn for their own enjoyment and on the bases of one magazine out of a large pile he is facing state charges and could be facing federal charges is an example of how insane our laws are in this area.


Thank **** for randy firefighters.

Quote:
Once more I am for cutting and pasting more sane laws that exist in other countries such as the UK.


Oh **** off. You're only concerned with the parts of law that affect you. You didn't give a **** about our 'sane' laws when it came to arguing that Texas should be able to execute a man without examining DNA evidence that could vindicate him. You seem pretty pissed off about our gun control laws as well. I know you can't stop being stupid, try to stop being a hypocrite.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 02:59 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
The story of the professor who firefighters decided to invaded his privacy and go through his 1970s collection of porn for their own enjoyment

There was no invasion of privacy involved in this case.

According to the news reports I heard, the firefighters were fighting a fire and a ceiling collapsed. The porn collection had been hidden in the ceiling.

The children are being harmed when their pornographic images are viewed--you're too involved with the issue of allowing pedophiles to sexually satisfy their masturbatory needs with these images to be able to understand the harm that is done to those children.

You worry about protecting the privacy of the man with the pornography, but don't worry about the privacy violation of the children in those images. Great double standard you have, BillRM.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 03:13 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The children are being harmed when their pornographic images are viewed--you're too involved with the issue of allowing pedophiles to sexually satisfy their masturbatory needs with these images to be able to understand the harm that is done to those children.


The funny thing is I never never never stated that there should not be some punishments and force treatment for having such materials and even some prison time for the worst of the worst with materials showing young children being abused for example.

But you are trying to get away from the points I am making by once more being your very dishonest self and claiming I wish to give pedophilies some kind of free pass.

The UK law does not give a free pass to pedophilies a law that I am for having US adopt many of it elements but you never been very honest.

It is a good thing for you that we do not punish such pe0ple as you by law for being dishonest in your debating!!!!! Laughing
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 06:11 am
@firefly,
DAVID wrote:
In other words, what is the reason that a young person
shoud CARE about it?
firefly wrote:
Because it is a violation of their privacy.
Remember the naked student "streakers" ?
I suspect that thay waived their rights to privacy; yes?
Over the years n decades, I have observed some of my cousins' children
or some of my girlfriends' children to be exhibitionistic, in calling for attention.
I believe that it has been our experience in life that sometimes
we insist upon vindication of our rights, but not always.
I imagine that we coud be brutal in exacting repayment from the French
of our loans to them in World War I, but we choose not to take that vu,
in effect WAIVING our rights. That was my state-of-mind qua getting
my rear end unexpectedly fotografed in 2005; not worth getting outraged about.
A drunken driver totaled out one of my cars; I chose to be magnanimous toward her.
Sometimes we choose not to exercise our rights to privacy; other times we DO.
(Witness the disagreement between yourself n Bill, wherein I support your position, on that point.)



firefly wrote:
And courts have granted such victims the right to sue
for psychological and emotional damages, and some have sued,
Depending upon the individual circumstances,
I can see that this might be very fair and just.




firefly wrote:
and all of this has been previously discussed in this thread--why keep re-hashing it?
Because of differences in my levels of energy to address the question.
In earlier discussions, I have felt inadequate energy to type in
some of the comments and questions that I deemed interesting.
I felt bad about it, as I was falling asleep.
That has been true of many threads in these on line fora.

For any temporal discontinuity: I earnestly apologize.



DAVID wrote:
when I was a kid, making love during my childhood
firefly wrote:
You were sexually active as a child?
Yes, indeed. I took a lot of pleasure in that.
The question of photography never occurred to us.
If it had, I dunno what we 'd have decided.
These days, some people now make movies of their erotic pursuits.
No one ever offered us money for any modeling fees.
(We were in private.)



DAVID wrote:
Has your mood changed yet, Firefly, against commenting on those 2 videos
firefly wrote:
Not yet.
Putting humor aside for the moment, Firefly,
I have learned to admire and respect your demonstrated powers of analysis.
Accordingly, I am interested to see whether those 2 speeches
have affected your opinions on the wisdom of giving statements to the police,
when your mood allows for scrutiny & contemplation thereof.





David
BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 07:07 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I have learned to admire and respect your demonstrated powers of analysis.


???????????????????????

All the woman seems good at is personal attacks charging anyone who disagree with her as being a pedophile or a drunk or whatever.

With such wonderful comments as how many DUIs do you have or does you wife also have child porn on her computers.

Beside misquoting others clearly taken positions on issues.

As far as talking to the police her position had been if you do not wavier all your rights and talk to the police or allow any kind of search they might ask of you then you had at the very best a criminal mind.

So on this board I can not see her changing her public position even if she might be bright enough not to wavier her rights if the state ever came after her for any reason in real life.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 07:21 am
@BillRM,
DAVID wrote:
I have learned to admire and respect your demonstrated powers of analysis.
BillRM wrote:
???????????????????????

All the woman seems good at is personal attacks charging anyone who disagree with her
as being a pedophile or a drunk or whatever.
I don 't take that vu of her, Bill.
I have found her to be a fine analyst and an excellent researcher.


BillRM wrote:
Beside misquoting others clearly taken positions on issues.
I have no information about errors of quotation.




BillRM wrote:
As far as talking to the police her position had been if you do not wavier all your rights
and talk to the police or allow any kind of search they might ask
of you then you had at the very best a criminal mind.
I 'll be interested to see her comments
on the 2 lectures concerning making statements to police,
when her mood allows her to proceed with that.


BillRM wrote:
So on this board I can not see her changing her public position
even if she might be bright enough not to wavier her rights
if the state ever came after her for any reason in real life.
We shall see what we shall see.





David
BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 07:29 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I have no information about errors of quotation.


Oh so you take her position that I am for giving pedofiles a free pass on having child porn or that any repeat any of my statements on the subject would support that kind of nonsense David?

She can not even be honest about the positions others posters had taken on this website.

A person that dishonest can not be trusted to be honest in doing any kind of research either.
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 07:30 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
It is a good thing for you that we do not punish such pe0ple as you by law for being dishonest in your debating!!!!!

You must have been looking in the mirror when you said that. Laughing

You repeatedly choose to ignore the fact that those minimum sentences for possession of child porn, that you keep carrying on about, are very often not imposed--people receive sentences as low as a few months, and even probation, for possession. So this is another of your strawman arguments bolstered by your denial of reality.

Your ignorance of how U.S. law is actually applied is matched by your ignorance of how the U.K. laws, you keep touting, are actually applied. In actual practice, there isn't much difference between the sentences being handed out in either country.

It's really amazing, that no matter what type of laws we discuss, pertaining to any subject, you always know more than all the legislators, and all the prosecutors, and all the judges, and more than just about everyone else, about how these laws are worded, interpreted, and applied--particularly since you never read these laws, or look at case law, or follow the sentences typically handed out--and you're always able to come to the conclusion that all those people don't know what they are doing, that the laws are wrong, they are mindlessly applied, misinterpreted, unfair to the defendant, etc., and you've got a better way of handling whatever violation is involved. Rolling Eyes Don't you wonder why the world isn't beating a path to your door? Laughing Maybe it's because you spell pedophiles as "pedofiles". Laughing



BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 07:38 am
@firefly,
Quote:
You repeatedly choose to ignore the fact that those minimum sentences for possession of child porn, that you keep carrying on about, are very often not imposed--people receive sentences as low as a few months, and even probation, for possession.


Some and only some Federal court circuits are backing judges in not following the guide lines set by Congress and many people depending on where they happen to live are indeed sentence under the five years minimum sentence guide lines even if the sentence clearly do not fit the misdeed.

So justice and commonsense depend on where you happen to live in this country and for some reason I do not think that is a correct way to run a justice system!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 07:39 am
@BillRM,
DAVID wrote:
I have no information about errors of quotation.
BillRM wrote:
Oh so you take her position that I am for giving pedofiles a free pass on having child porn or that any repeat any of my statements on the subject would support that kind of nonsense David?
Having NO INFORMATION
is different than taking someone's position, Bill.
Nothing that I said accused u of anything.





BillRM wrote:
She can not even be honest about the positions others posters had taken on this website.

A person that dishonest can not be trusted to be honest in doing any kind of research either.
When I was 11, I consciously repudiated trust in any human or animal, Bill.
Since then, I have only had reason to re-affirm my distrust.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 07:49 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Maybe it's because you spell pedophiles as "pedofiles". Laughing
Whoever it was that mistransliterated that sound into a ph instead of F,
rendered us a disservice.
I wonder what he had in mind.





David




[/quote]
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 07:53 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Having NO INFORMATION
is different than taking someone's position, Bill.


So you have no information on the positions I had been taking on the subject at hands on this website or you are under the impression that Firefly had been in any way or in any manner honest in expressing the positions I had taken?

David I can not see how you can claimed that you have no informations on the positions I had stood for in thousands of postings or how you can have no information on how Firefly had make complete false statements of those positions time after time.

Throwing in personal attacks as she did so.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 07:55 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Laughing Maybe it's because you spell pedophiles as "pedofiles". Laughing


You know the correct spelling is paedophile.
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 07:55 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Some and only some Federal court circuits are backing judges in not following the guide lines set by Congress and many people depending on where they happen to live are indeed sentence under the five years minimum sentence guide lines even if the sentence clearly do not fit the misdeed.

No, jerk, it's that about 95% of the Federal cases for first time possession of child porn are settled by plea deals which carry sentences as low as a few months. And that information has been posted previously in this thread. Not that you ever allow yourself to be confused by the facts. Laughing

You also overlook the fact that many arrested for possession of child porn also share it and distribute it to others, and that can increase the severity of the sentence.

People who possess child pornography know it's illegal, they know what sentences they might face, but they choose to violate the laws anyway. They took the risk, they gambled about getting caught, and they lost. That's what helps to keep defense attorneys in business.
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 08:07 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You know the correct spelling is paedophile

Next you'll tell me that the correct spelling of "behavior" is "behaviour". Laughing

Actually, I think BillRM's use of "pedofiles" reflects his own preoccupation with protecting the files on his computer. Perhaps he has his own collection named/labelled "pedofiles". Laughing
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 08:07 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Having NO INFORMATION
is different than taking someone's position, Bill.
BillRM wrote:
So you have no information on the positions I had been taking on the subject at hands on this website or you are under the impression that Firefly had been in any way or in any manner honest in expressing the positions I had taken?

David I can not see how you can claimed that you have no informations on the positions I had stood for in thousands of postings or how you can have no information on how Firefly had make complete false statements of those positions time after time.

Throwing in personal attacks as she did so.
The specific nature of the discord between Firefly and u is not clear in my memory.

(Will u summarize the essence of what it was??)


I did not pay close attention to all of that ad hominem reciprocal rancor.
I like to look at beauty, not disharmony, when I 'm not getting paid for it.
I briefly caught some glimpses of it, but did not make a close study
of all the insults.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn - Discussion by tsarstepan
T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
RIP Professor Snape - Alan Rickman Passes at 69 - Discussion by engineer
Fergusonj shooting, autopsy in, all shots from front - Discussion by gungasnake
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Berry's desperate 911 call to police - Discussion by smithy988
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class
  3. » Page 66
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 06:14:33
▲ ▼