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  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 02:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:

Based upon legal standards

I doubt you have even read the legal standards. If you had, you wouldn't claim that totally innocuous pictures are being classified as child pornography.
Quote:
and we should not punish people for life for looking at images which get them off

When those images involve the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of children, we certainly should punish those who become complicit in such actions by creating the demand for such material and violating the privacy of these children.

Adult porn involves consenting adults. Child pornography does not involve individuals who can either consent to what is done to them in those images, or consent to the viewing of their image.

You are advocating that the safety and welfare of children be abandoned so that pedophiles can legally obtain their preferred masturbatory materials.

You are sick.
0 Replies
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 02:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
My thoughts are, this is protection, provention.

However, having said that, we don't lock everyone up that thinks about robbery, or any one for that matter, until they break the law.

The problem is, viewing pornography (child) pornography is against the law and the law has taken a protection/provention attitude towards it.

Morally it is wrong in any event.

But, I agree, this is something that is born within in my opinion, not something someone decides to become..

So there should be help out there and it should be seen as such.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 02:53 pm
@hawkeye10,
You really are ridiculous, by consuming such material he is creating a demand for such material. Not all people involved in the abuse of children are paedophiles, a lot are in it for the money, there's criminal gangs involved. If there was no demand, those criminals would do something else.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 02:56 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
My thoughts are, this is protection, provention.

However, having said that, we don't lock everyone up that thinks about robbery, or any one for that matter, until they break the law.


Civilized people do not criminalize perceived threats, and civilized nations do not launch "preemptive" invasions of other nations. What you are looking at is a America that is in a very bad place right now, with little interest in reform and a return to better practices.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 02:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
It's not a perceived threat, it's a real threat.
0 Replies
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 02:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
I do think we are very lucky in Australia.

That being, for the most part, people really are Innocent until Proven Guilty and if sick, this is very much taken into consideration as to where to place a person.

Having said that, there are "car sales men " as cops as well, that aren't taught properly and seem to 'forget' to collect evidence rather get excited and take notes. To bad when the guy dies in hospital and they didn't get his confession signed off.

Not withstanding, it is the same in any Industry... People have to make mistakes to learn.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 02:59 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You really are ridiculous, by consuming such material he is creating a demand for such material


So the assertion goes...now prove it. Oh ya, you boys always forget that part.....you expect your emotional appeal to seal the deal, that reality will never need be consulted.

My assertion is that those who create these images do it to satisfy their own urges, that they would do it even if they never passed them on, and that they currently do not get any economic benefit from trading these pics most of the time which proves that your claims are bogus.

Watch out Pushy, if you were ever forced to examine your currently unexamined prejudice the shock might land you in the insane asylum.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
Why don't you prove some of the ridiculous nonsense you spout. Are you saying that criminal gangs aren't involved in the distribution of child pornography?

If you were to ever examine your own currently unexamined smug vacuity, you'd disappear up your own arse.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:12 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Are you saying that criminal gangs aren't involved in the distribution of child pornography?


That would depend upon the operating definition of "criminal gang".....what I claimed was that child porn is rarely sold, it is normally traded freely amongst like minded individuals. There is no "market" as the term is commonly used, and the motive to abuse is barely connected to any demand for the images from others. Keep in mind that a vast portion of the current child porn traffic was created many decades ago, which also casts grave doubt on the claim that trading in child porn is connected to ongoing or future abuse.

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:16 pm
@izzythepush,
His thinking on this issue is so irrational, it's a waste of time trying to talk to him.

His sense of morality begins and ends with his own need to have an orgasm. So, all he understands is that if pedophiles need child pornography to masturbate to orgasm, he wants them to have it--he doesn't give a damn about the children involved. His only ridiculous recourse is to claim there is no harm done to the children involved, or that the material doesn't depict the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children.

He's out of touch with reality. Or just plain stupid.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:18 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
His thinking on this issue is so irrational, it's a waste of time trying to talk to him.


It is a waste of time to use your normal bullying methods on me. I also think it is a waste of time to try to get you to be honest and to look into this subject with any objectivity.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
Oh **** off, nobody's bullying you, you're not a martyr, you're a twat.
firefly
 
  2  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I also think it is a waste of time to try to get you to be honest and to look into this subject with any objectivity.

Throughout this thread, I have supplied the evidence for everything I have said about child pornography--and there is abundant evidence.

You've disregarded all of it.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence for anything you are saying, nor have you presented anything other than your own prejudiced views. Feel free to provide evidence that the possession and sharing of child pornography is not harmful to the children sexually exploited in those images, that it does not violate their privacy, and that it does not contribute to maintaining the production of more child porn, and that pedophiles who collect and view this material never sexually molest children and provide no threat to children.

You are so ignorant you look like a fool.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
These shots are claimed to be child abuse, and in the UK due to recent law making are subject to restrictions in publication.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/abc_child_vogue_model_nt_110803_wg.jpg

http://www.thelifefiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/thylane-lena-rose.jpeg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y6wWri3J-ao/TkKOaPhgZTI/AAAAAAAAEFk/Q3HXNvspIbE/s1600/Thylane+Lena-Rose+Blondeau+-+HotWallpaper9.Blogspot.Com+%25287%2529.jpg

Quote:
Last night the Mothers’ Union issued a damning criticism of Miss Blondeau’s Vogue pictures.
‘We have grave concerns about the modelling agency who represent Miss Blondeau, which clearly does not know if it represents a child or an adult,’ it said.
‘Photo shoots requiring her, a ten-year-old-girl, to dress in full make-up, teetering heels and a dress with a cleavage cut to the waist across her prepubescent body deny Miss Blondeau the right to be the child she is.’
Bloggers also attacked the images. One said on Tumblr: ‘This isn’t edgy. It’s inappropriate, and creepy.’

And Dr Emma Gray of the British CBT & Counselling Service (www.thebritishcbtcounsellingservice.co.uk) said: ‘This picture is the antithesis of what childhood in our society should be; a child being exposed to a world she is not yet equipped to deal with solely to serve the needs of the adults around her.’





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2022305/Thylane-Lena-Rose-Blondeau-Shocking-images-10-YEAR-OLD-Vogue-model.html#ixzz1mrk4LgmT
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:36 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Oh **** off, nobody's bullying you, you're not a martyr, you're a twat.


You are right,,,,,she is trying without success. This bugs her greatly I think.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
Those pictures are not what is legally classified as child pornography in the U.S.

Are you saying that is legally classified as child porn in the U.K.?

You seem to be ignorant of what is legally considered child pornography.

Or are you simply being a jerk.
Quote:
This bugs her greatly I think.

I don't take you seriously enough to let you bug me. You're an asshole.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:41 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Throughout this thread, I have supplied the evidence for everything I have said about child pornography


Please direct me to the evidence presented by you that sex offender lists are effective in protecting children from abuse?

You cant, because you never did, and it does not exist. Thus us a classic Firefly lie.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:43 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Those pictures are not what is legally classified as child pornography in the U.S.

Are you saying that is legally classified as child porn in the U.K.?

You seem to be ignorant of what is legally considered child pornography.

Or are you simply being a jerk.


Leave it to you to assume that the states current definition is the only one that matters, being a stanch police state advocate as you are causes some mighty big blind spots.
firefly
 
  2  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Leave it to you to assume that the states current definition is the only one that matters,

It's the only definition that matters when discussing criminal behavior--like possession of child pornography.

But you're too ignorant to realize that.

What a pathetic jerk you are. Laughing
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2012 03:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
http://www.bimbogami.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/zzzzz.gif
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 82
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 06/25/2025 at 05:36:26
▲ ▼