The media is misreporting this. This misogynist man deserves to go to jail.

I paid some attention to that story, and never heard anyone claim that this particular guy ever hurt a child. And no, watching video or looking at pics of other people commit the crime of child abuse does not make him guilty of child abuse.

Bill has nothing to feel bad about. The people who should feel bad are the people who's minds snap shut when ever the question of sexual transgression comes up in conversation. Most often also insist that the conversation must stop...for the sake of the nebulous alleged vast body of victims. We are like the old church, either believe as told, or at least claim to, or be excommunicated. The minds of the enlightenment would be appalled at how far we have gone in reverse in the years since they put their stock in reason and the validity of empowering individual freedom.

It does.

Strange Hawkye when I addressed the issue of computer security when an asshole used the tor network to send a bomb threat at Harvard no one then accused me of being for the sending of bomb threats real or not.

Izzy have a habit of using little logic in his attacks.

For the record once more time I have no problem with some punishment for having such materials at the level of Izzy own nation the UK have seem fit to apply but not the insane levels of punishment of the US.

So insane that in some cases raping a child carry less of a punishment then having a picture of that rape

Your logic is like your language, garbled and all over the place.

If somebody has an issue with your punitive sentencing that's a valid point. However that should be applied across the board. You only want reduced sentences for rape, child abuse and other sexual/violent crimes.

My point about you being quite happy for a man to be executed without examining DNA evidence that could exonerate him shows that you're not interested in reform per se, but only those crimes that you feel may affect you.

Yes our penalties for child molesters are less harsh than yours, but then again so are our penalties for robbery, murder, fraud, arson and pretty much everything else that doesn't involve firearms possession.

Far from displaying logic you've reinforced the message that the only criminals you care about are paedophiles and rapists. I think there are far more deserving cases.
.


http://www.businessinsider.com/10-most-outrageous-mandatory-minimum-2013-4?op=1&IR=T

Thanks nono/whitey for choosing that answer.

A little annecdote on the same topic:

As not so many people know, Alexandre Dumas père -- the author of the three musketeers, the man in the iron mask, and countless other historic novels -- was a "quarteron": his grand father was a black slave and his father was a metis (he was a soldier, made general by Napoleon Bonaparte). So Dumas had "1/4 of black blood", as people used to say in those days.

He was also a very rich man, and a socialite. One evening as he was playing cards in one of these Parisian salons where the French cultural and political elite used to mix, another guest started a little speach about evolution. Darwinism was new and debate about it raging... That particular debater was arguing that black people were closer to apes than white people, a sort of intermediary level between apes and (white) men. He was trying to offend Dumas, who feigned to not pay attention and kept playing cards...

At some point, the racist guest addressed Dumas directly: "but Monsieur Dumas can confirm all this, since his grandfather was a negro!" Dumas retorted: "Indeed, my father was a mulato, my grandfather was a negro, and my great-grandfather was a monkey. As you can see sir, my family starts where yours ends..."

Which, according to Izzy, can only mean that Dumas was racist, since he compared a black man to a monkey... Some people can't understand satire.

How laboured, Dumas was of his time and of black descent responding directly to an insult.

That's not the same as white people portraying black women as monkeys in the 21st Century. Frankly the comparison is ridiculous, it says a lot about your tortured thinking which seems to have an aura of malevolent impotence about it.

Once you resort to telling an anecdote only to predict another's reaction, you've lost the plot. It's the sort of thing fifteen year olds do.

Charlie Hebdo was likewise responding directly to an insult by the National Front, so there's no difference between the two cases.

By giving it shape and form, thus putting an image in people's heads.

Dumas didn't do anything like that.

Still you continue? I bet BillRM is breathing a sigh of relief right now.

I'm willing to concede that casual racism is probably more acceptable in France, just look at the support for the National Front, but that doesn't make it right.

You are confusing satire with the thing being satired. How thick... Those who don't understand satire are destined to peddles puny racist lies, I guess...

It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't accept there's ever a valid reason, no matter how seemingly pc or satirical, for depicting a black woman as a monkey.

Believe what you want, but i would appreciate if you wouldn't peddle lies originating from the national front, and equating racists and antiracists.

I haven't peddled any lies. I've said what Charlie Hebdo did, you tried to justify it. If anyone was peddling lies originating from the National Front it was Charlie Hebdo.

You have shared a version of the cartoon in question, without the caption and front national logo. That's peddling a doctored version to make the cartoon says something it doesn't say. That's a lie. Another lie is to present Charlie Hebdo, a fiercely anti-racist publication, as racist.

The new working definition of racist is to say anything negative about a racial group, or anything negative about a member of such a group while pegging the comments to the group. Any factual correctness of the comment is irrelevant. Under this definition Charlie Hebdo is very racist. I was watching some youtube William F Buckley Early 90's work the other day were he launched into stats on the breakdown of the black families, and talked about what he believed the costs of this are, and why we as a nation need to work to rebuild families....these days that would be considered racism. And you cant even talk about the word family anymore, because the word has almost no meaning now, it definition as been so expanded. This is supposed to be good thing, it is supposed to mean that we are more tolerant, but that is wishful thinking. The end result is that increasingly we cant talk about reality, because the language and the rules on using language dont allow it.

Re Charley Hebdo: I never much cared for Christopher Hitchens vendetta against religion probably because I am a spiritual person who sees great value in religion, but when he goes off on Islam now that we have been though this time since 9/11 I find his comments having a deep resonation.

I googled images and that's what came up.

And as I've mentioned repeatedly, the caption doesn't excuse the drawing.

Maybe this sort of "PC dictatorship" applies to the UK and US, but it does not apply to France. That's perhaps why Izzy finds it so hard to understand CH's humour: he judges it by non-applicable foreign standards. I tried to explain the context but he doesn't care for that, he has only only contempt for our culture. Which is a form of racism, or at least parochialism, if you ask me.

That's right, labelling black people monkeys is just part of French culture, and anyone who takes exception is racist.

Now **** off.

Google is the shortest way to all sorts of lies, Izzy. It's incubant on you to verify the information you share. Anyway, I explained the FACT that you peddled a doctored version many times and you never apologized, thus proving that you debate in bad faith, that you stick to your lies.

BTW, the cartoon needs no excuse. The caption and FN logo are part and parcel of the cartoon and necessary to understand its meaning, that's all. Excising them is equivalent to quoting Dumas as saying: "my grandfather was a negro, and my great-grandfather was a monkey", in order to make him look like a racist. It's a lie, nothing less.

I have coined the phrase "moral authoritarianism" to describe what is going on here. We see it at A2K, where on subject after subject we are told that there can be no discussion, that those who take the offending views must be shut down and/or excluded. And most certainly truth is not a defense. A stunning degree of intolerance has set in here, even worse it is an intolerance rooted in an aversion to unpleasant reality. What we have is an doomed to fail attempt to fence out reality by making it socially and linguistically impossible to talk about reality.

CH never labelled all black people as monkeys, nor even Christiane Taubira. That's another lie from a serial liar.