16
   

If you disagree with me you are the following...........

 
 
parados
 
  6  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 07:26 am
@BillRM,
Let's put this in perspective Bill. You are making it a little simple.

You are for reducing the penalties for child porn.
You are for eliminating the current law that allows victims of child porn to sue anyone found with a picture of that porn because you argue the person viewing the child porn is not causing harm to the victim.
You have railed against the government for searching and confiscating computers of people that enter the country with child porn on their computers saying the government has no right to do such a thing.
You have called those found with child porn stupid because they don't encrypt their files to hide them from the government.
You have stated you encrypt everything on your computer so the government can't find out what you are doing.
You have stated you hide your IP address when you go on line so the government can't track you.
The government tends to try to track the IP address of people that trade child porn on line.
You have stated people are stupid if they don't hide their IP are stupid.

All those things are true about you Bill.

Some other things I seem to recall are true about you.
You have called for decriminalization of sex with minors or at least a reduction in the age of consent to allow adults to have sex with children.
You have admitted having a large collection of porn.
You have argued rape laws are too restrictive.


In reality Bill, when people accuse you of something it is because of a large collection of known facts about you that leads to a conclusion that could be well be wrong but it is hardly based on just a single position on your part.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 08:17 am
@parados,
Quote:
Some other things I seem to recall are true about you.
You have called for decriminalization of sex with minors or at least a reduction in the age of consent to allow adults to have sex with children.


Hell no,at no time or in no placed had I suggest that sex with children or having pictures of children being abused in a sexual manner or in any other manner should be allowed

I did think that allowing even teachers to be charge with felonies for having sex with adults students is wrong. Firing them is fine however.

Nor do I think that late teens taking pictures of themselves to be shared with their sexual partners should not come under the CP laws. It is crazy that the law will allow, by age of consent, teens having sex with each other but if they would send sexual pictures of themselves to each other then can and have been at least threaten with being charge under those laws that are design to protect young people not ruin their lives.

Quote:
You have railed against the government for searching and confiscating computers of people that enter the country with child porn on their computers saying the government has no right to do such a thing.


Bullshit I had railed against the searching of computers at the border without the need of having probable cause at just the whim of a custom officer and my position is the same as the ACLU and the EFF.

Quote:
You have called those found with child porn stupid because they don't encrypt their files to hide them from the government.


I think that anyone who in breaking the laws that does stupid things such as having CP on their computers without taking precautions is indeed very very stupid that however does not mean that I approved of the law breaking in the first place.

Quote:
You have stated you hide your IP address when you go on line so the government can't track you.
The government tends to try to track the IP address of people that trade child porn on line.


Have you been reading the news of late? The government is keeping records of all of us not just people who are or might be trading CP with a new computer center in Utah coming on line with the storage abilities of 5 billions terabyte.


Quote:
You have stated people are stupid if they don't hide their IP are stupid.


Wrong that is up to all of us to decide for ourselves if we are comfortable having the government tracking all of us on the net. In my opinion you do not need to be a law breaker of any kind to find that annoying and once more my opinion is the same as that of the ACLU and the EFF. Oh take note the government is also recording the outsides of all 160 billions letters we mail ever year.

Quote:
In reality Bill, when people accuse you of something it is because of a large collection of known facts about you that leads to a conclusion that could be well be wrong but it is hardly based on just a single position on your part.



Bullshit unless you think that anyone who support the bill of rights should also be consider to be likely involved with such evilness or agree with the majority of federal judges that the sentencing guidelines for CP is too hash and are uncomfortable with the government tracking our every move with no need of a hint of any criminal wrong doing.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 08:50 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:


Hell no,at no time or in no placed had I suggest that sex with children or having pictures of children being abused in a sexual manner or in any other manner should be allowed


Which is why I didn't claim it was true. I'm not going to spend time searching your posts. You and hawkeye tend to get mixed together because you share the same side on so many issues. It's human nature to put you with a group you agree with.

Quote:
Bullshit I had railed against the searching of computers at the border without the need of having probable cause
As I recall, the one case happened to involve child porn. I consider my statement to be true.


I am merely pointing out there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that put together as a whole can lead to a conclusion. That is much different from your claim that you are being attacked for simply holding one opinion on a single subject.

By the way, why do you use the acronym CP? Acronyms tend to be used by people that deal often in an area because the shorthand is understood by others that deal in the same area. I wouldn't have known what you mean by CP if you hadn't included "pedophilia" in the statement.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 09:32 am
@parados,
Quote:
As I recall, the one case happened to involve child porn. I consider my statement to be true.


Sorry your statement is nonsense in every way there had been a numbers of cases and not all or even most of them have anything to do with CP and second I am not in favor of ripping up the bill of rights over CP or for any other reason. CP and national security had been the government main excused to set up massive spying operations on all of us.

The border situation have gotten so bad that large companies have their employees wiping their drives clean before coming into the US and I assume that this is due to them not trusting the government with their trade secrets not because they are trading in CP.

Quote:
I am merely pointing out there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that put together as a whole can lead to a conclusion.


Nonsense unless you wish to apply the same standards to the ACLU and the EFF and anyone else that find massive government surveillance worrisome or think that such things as having sentences for having image files of child rape on a computer should be longer in some cases then the raping of a child is not a good used of our resources. An I had not even gone to the idea of long sentences for having cartoon drawings of "underage" cartoon characters having sex.

Quote:
By the way, why do you use the acronym CP? Acronyms tend to be used by people that deal often in an area because the shorthand is understood by others that deal in the same area. I wouldn't have known what you mean by CP if you hadn't included "pedophilia" in the statement.


You got to be kidding me finding that it is faster to write CP then writing over and over child porn is an indication that the person taking that short cut is a trader in CP or child porn?

Hell the term CP had been used in New York Time articles if memory serve me correctly.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 09:42 am
@BillRM,
The ACLU and the EFF don't post here. You do.

I find it rather funny how when I give you an explanation of why people might reach a conclusion that goes far beyond your simple argument you shout and post in colors.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 09:55 am
@parados,
Quote:
The ACLU and the EFF don't post here. You do.


An if they would posted their positions here you would then claimed that both organizations are involved in Pedophile actions due to them taking the same positions you had already stated is a valid indications that I am or likely am involved is such behaviors????????

Sorry standing up for the bill or rights or the constitutional rights of privacy is not an indication no matter what your thinking happen to be that someone is a lawbreaker in any manner.

Oh and the majority of sitting Federal Judges by polls that agree with me that US federal CP sentences as set by congress are too hash and a poor used of our resources also should be consider child sexual abusers?

To sum up you have zero valid reasons to think I am anything but a supporter of the constitution and the right of privacy that the SC had found is in the constitution and a supporter of the wise use of our criminal resources.

The other nonsense is just an unsupported attempt at slurring anyone who disagree with you.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 10:34 am
@BillRM,

1. The ACLU is not a person. It is an organization with a mission statement. You don't have a public mission statement, do you Bill?
2. The ACLU has a public record in court of their actions unlike people that post here.
3. The ACLU is not an anonymous poster on a message board.
4. People reach conclusion based on what they know which in the case of posters here is limited. You could volunteer to be a foster parent for 100s of kids and we don't know about it.

I don't know that I have ever seen you argue for harsher sentences for child sexual abuse. Certainly you don't approach it with the same passion as your argument for reduced sentences for child porn. Any argument you might make about child sexual abuse is colored by your position when it comes to rape. Your position there tends to leave an emotional distaste for many people.

The government should stay out of private peoples lives unless they have probably cause and a warrant is quite different from arguing private people need to protect themselves from government intrusion by encrypting everything so they can even deny government access when there is a warrant. The ACLU would argue the first part. You tend to argue the second. While you may see yourself as equal to the ACLU it is not how others view you since you tend to introduce quite different arguments even though you claim your goal is the same.


Quote:

The other nonsense is just an unsupported attempt at slurring anyone who disagree with you.
That is rather ironic, don't you think Bill? I list things about you that can lead people rightly or wrongly to a conclusion and you get upset because people don't see you as you see yourself.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 11:23 am
@parados,
Quote:
I don't know that I have ever seen you argue for harsher sentences for child sexual abuse.


Never been a subject of a thread however I had indeed stated that some sentences that been posted here for child rape/abused is way way too short and in fact had shocked me over the shortness of the sentences.

Quote:
by your position when it comes to rape.


My position on rape as in the used of force or the threat of force or the having of sex with someone that is not aware of their surrounding?

As far as I know my positions is kind of the standard position of most of society members.

The only disagree I had have here is the right of a woman to go out drinking with a partner and due to her own drinking can claimed rape after the fact if she happen to regret the sex due to the theory of lack of valid consent afterward.

Sorry adults even female adults are under the law are responsible for their own behaviors under the voluntary influence of either alcohol or drugs and there should be no exception when it come to sex unless the condition reach the level of not being aware of her surroundings.

If a woman find she is unhappy with the sexual partners she picked when drinking her recourse should be not drinking so must when out with a possible sexual partner in the future not locking the guy up for rape.

Men should not need to be adult women sexual guardians and to do so is not only unfair to the men but an insult to women and their standing as adults.

Quote:
The government should stay out of private peoples lives unless they have probably


So keeping records of all of our telephone calls contacts and email contacts and recording every mail covers all 160 billions of them yearly are staying out of people private lives in your opinion?

Next the government and the courts had stated so far that we do not have a right to privacy at the borders and the only way to maintain privacy at the border is to have all your materials encrypted or have your drive wipe clean as many companies are doing.

Quote:
so they can even deny government access when there is a warrant. The ACLU would argue the first part.


Both the EFF and ACLU had taken the same position that I had that a warrant by itself does not take away the fifth amendment right not to testify against yourself by giving law enforcement a decrypt key or keys.

Right now the courts had been divided over the matter but there is no duty under a warrant itself to surrender the keys.



parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 11:35 am
@BillRM,
Justifying or clarifying your positions doesn't change earlier statements that may have led people to a conclusion. Nor does it mean people made a conclusion based on just one position you have taken which they disagreed with.

Some people may do that but not all and certainly some of your run ins are the result of a long running conversation over many topics.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 11:56 am
@parados,
Quote:
Justifying or clarifying your positions doesn't change earlier statements that may have led people to a conclusion



Those so call clarifications that had always been my express opinions not the edit and simplify positions that people like you had try to claimed had been my positions, in order to be able to come up with an conclusion that I am for CP trading or a rape supporter or whatever the hell it is.

There is no way to honestly read my complete positions on issues and come to any of those silly conclusions.

Any more then it was honest when I reply to the question "do you trade CP?" from the queen of PC/morals herself with "Yes I trade CP with Federal judges" and she edit it to just "Yes I trade CP".

With editing and simplifications you can find ways to slur anyone.

parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 12:07 pm
@BillRM,
Now you are proposing a black/white scenario which isn't reality.

No one has read or will read your complete positions on any issues. People make conclusions based on what they have seen. Some make it based on one position or statement by you. Others make it based on multiple statements which may be incomplete but it is still based on what they have seen of your position that leads them there.

I think you just don't like the fact that people might see you differently than you see yourself.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 12:44 pm
@parados,
This sad thread is all about BillRM embarking on a PR exercise and it doesn't wash. His concern about the harsh legal system only extends to the rights of violent criminals, in particular those who abuse children. He has consistently argued in favour of the state of Texas' right to execute a man without examining DNA evidence that could exonerate him. He's not remotely interested in justice, just satiating his own desires.

If you read the 'clarification' about his views on rape he's basically saying it's alright to rape someone as long as they've had a drink.

As you've already pointed out, there are very good reasons why a lot of us find BillRM's views completely repulsive.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 12:52 pm
@parados,
Quote:
No one has read or will read your complete positions on any issues. People make conclusions based on what they have seen.


No they make conclusions on what they wish to see and if they desire to see me as a simple version of evil because I disagree with them and picked sentences and words out of content to support those views that is their failings not mine.

An sometimes the words and sentences that are picked are so completely out of content that there is no question that it is a dishonest attempt to picture me incorrectly.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jul, 2013 01:49 pm
@parados,
By the way thanks for addressing the subject of this thread not trying to turn it into another Paula Deen thread or whatever.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
OBVIOUS TROLL - Question by Setanta
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Soon to be world traveler, Dog willing! - Discussion by Stacey the red baron
The Bah! Humbug! Christmas thread. - Discussion by msolga
A good cry on the train - Discussion by Joe Nation
Why all the Decryptonite stuff? - Question by Tes yeux noirs
Oh rest ye, Merry Gentleman - Discussion by jespah
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/12/2019 at 03:08:14