...and, Mr. Grisham...

[vraiblonde]

I'm going to say this as delicately as I possibly can.

This is one biggest pieces of horse#### posts I think I've ever seen, let alone from you.

When a child is forced to have sex with an adult, or even with another child, and that is being filmed, sold, then displayed for adults to watch that child is being harmed. People that watch that filth are patronizing the harm of a child. Hence, they are participating in the harm of these children. So, technically they are harming children by watching the crap.

You can try to justify this in your narrow, sick libertarian way; when you're done, all you've done is justify the abuse of children.

I guaran-damn-tee you that if you had a child that was in a child porn movie, and that movie was all over the internet, you'd want every person that viewed it dealt with by the law. If you don't, then you're even sicker than I think you are at this very moment. If your libertarianism is so deeply rooted in your thinking that everyone is free to do as they please as long as they aren't harming anyone; even when it comes to watching child porn, this makes me really happy I'm not a libertarian in the strict sense of the word. There are lines that aren't crossed; and this one is clearly drawn.

That was delicate

And spot on.

 

[vraiblonde]

No, she said:

And I stand by that. How many non-pedos do you know who defend kiddie porn? Any?

 

[Kyle]

You can try to justify this in your narrow, sick libertarian way; when you're done, all you've done is justify the abuse of children.

Please know that that particular predilection he endorses is not a libertarian characteristic or position.

 

[Kyle]

And I stand by that. How many non-pedos do you know who defend kiddie porn? Any?

 

[PsyOps]

Please know that that particular predilection he endorses is not a libertarian characteristic or position.

It may not be yours, but it is his. It takes libertarianism to the extreme. And I would bet Chris is in the extreme minority within the libertarian sect.

 

[vraiblonde]

It may not be yours, but it is his. It takes libertarianism to the extreme. And I would bet Chris is in the extreme minority within the libertarian sect.

Chris is not a libertarian, he is an anarchist.

 

[PsyOps]

Chris is not a libertarian, he is an anarchist.

I completely get the libertarian ideal that we all should be allowed to do what we want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I am largely for this. Of course I am starting to change when it comes to drugs. But, to be completely ignorant to what happens when people consume child porn, and believe it doesn't harm anyone... how does your ideology cause you to not apply what happens here as a market, or even on a logical level? How can Chris not realize that when you participate in a market, you are not only endorsing that market, you are saying that market should thrive and survive and produce more of it; resulting in more abuse to our children? Chris... can you not see these chain of market events?

 

[Starman]

I completely get the libertarian ideal that we all should be allowed to do what we want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I am largely for this. Of course I am starting to change when it comes to drugs. But, to be completely ignorant to what happens when people consume child porn, and believe it doesn't harm anyone... how does your ideology cause you to not apply what happens here as a market, or even on a logical level? How can Chris not realize that when you participate in a market, you are not only endorsing that market, you are saying that market should thrive and survive and produce more of it; resulting in more abuse to our children? Chris... can you not see these chain of market events?

Child porn is a terrible example to raise because both parties aren’t capable of consent. Mutual consent/mutually beneficial interaction is a cornerstone of libertarian frameworks.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Jesus H. Christ.

I say:

I think there's something to be said for the stupid things this country puts people on the sex offender list for, but while he may be technically correct in that those people have never harmed anyone, someone who chooses to look at those sorts of things is ####ed in the head.

And somehow some of you twist that into me defending peoplewho watch the ####?

 

[vraiblonde]

Jesus H. Christ.

I say:


And somehow some of you twist that into me defending peoplewho watch the ####?

Grisham is NOT "technically correct" that people who watch child porn "have never harmed anyone." They are harming the children who are forced to make the videos or pics in the first place. No consumers, no market, no exploited children. So indeed if you "only" watch child pornography, you are contributing to the abuse of children in a direct line.

Why is this hard to understand? I thought Psy spelled it out rather nicely.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Grisham is NOT "technically correct" that people who watch child porn "have never harmed anyone." They are harming the children who are forced to make the videos or pics in the first place. No consumers, no market, no exploited children. So indeed if you "only" watch child pornography, you are contributing to the abuse of children in a direct line.

Why is this hard to understand? I thought Psy spelled it out rather nicely.

Because, apparently, some of you can't read the god damned link. Grisham, and myself, aren't talking about people who actively search for it. Those people are ####ing sick (and I don't know how many times I can point that out)

We have prisons now filled with guys my age. Sixty-year-old white men in prison who've never harmed anybody, would never touch a child, but they got online one night and started surfing around, probably had too much to drink or whatever, and pushed the wrong buttons, went too far and got into child porn.

I have no sympathy for real pedophiles. God, please lock those people up. But so many of these guys do not deserve harsh prison sentences, and that's what they're getting.

There's so many 'sex offenders' - that's what they're called - that they put them in the same prison. Like they're a bunch of perverts... We've gone nuts with this incarceration.

What he's saying, a point seemingly lost by some of you, is that some people are unfairly lumped in with real perverts because under federal law, looking at an image can mean a 5 year minimum sentence. Do the people who actively search for that crap deserve the full force of the law? Absolutely, and I'll never disagree that those people are ####ed in the head. I'll also never disagree that you, and Psy, are correct in that those unfortunate children are harmed. I'm certainly not excusing the #######s who put that #### online either.

Grisham's point, to a larger extent, is about federal mandatory minimum sentencing that leads the US to locking up the most people in the world. The issue at hand, as evidenced by a few responses on here, is that you can't even discuss (albeit years later, apparently) sex offenders and suggest that some may be punished too severely because the topic of children and sex triggers fear and disgust (rightfully so), but it also apparently makes it hard for people to think clearly.

The fear and disgust triggered by this subject help explain why laws dealing with sex offenses involving minors frequently lead to bizarre results, including wildly disproportionate sentences, punishment disguised as regulation or treatment, and penalties for committing unintentional crimes, recording your own legal behavior, or looking at pictures of nonexistent children.

http://reason.com/archives/2017/03/15/sex-and-kids

 

[Gilligan]

LMAO. Once again...Chris' inability to communicate effectively is "everyone else's fault".

Wish I had a dollah for every time that happened....

Pro Tip: When you are failing to get your point across, go to a larger font and/or all caps. oh..and insert lots of cussing.

 

[Lurk]

LMAO. Once again...Chris' inability to communicate effectively is "everyone else's fault".

Wish I had a dollah for every time that happened....

Pro Tip: When you are failing to get your point across, go to a larger font and/or all caps. oh..and insert lots of cussing.

. . .and pictures. Lots of pictures.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

LMAO. Once again...Chris' inability to communicate effectively is "everyone else's fault".

Wish I had a dollah for every time that happened....

Pro Tip: When you are failing to get your point across, go to a larger font and/or all caps. oh..and insert lots of cussing.

My point was clear in my first response in this thread. It's not my fault peopel can't read the years-old link and understand the topic at hand.

You know, there's something to be said for people who, when confronted with something they don't understand or need clarity on, they make assumptions and run with it instead of seeking clarity.



I think it's called, "Intellectual dishonesty".


If you offered anything of value to a discussion around here, you may be in the same boat.

 

[Gilligan]

My point was clear in my first response in this thread. It's not my fault peopel can't read the years-old link and understand the topic at hand.

You know, there's something to be said for people who, when confronted with something they don't understand or need clarity on, they make assumptions and run with it instead of seeking clarity.



I think it's called, "Intellectual dishonesty".


If you offered anything of value to a discussion around here, you may be in the same boat.

Kids...I swear...

 

[vraiblonde]

Grisham, and myself, aren't talking about people who actively search for it.

Yeah, you may "accidentally" run across child porn in your internet ramblings, but I never have. And if I did, I would report it immediately.

You and Grisham may not want criminals locked up, but most of us do. We don't want these people free to prey on us or our children. If you want to live like that, go start your own country. This one is ours.

If it were up to me, all child sex abusers would get the death penalty - a real one, not the one where they live at taxpayer expense for 50 years. You can call that a "disproportionate sentence" if you want, and again I say feel free to go start your own country. This one is ours.

 

[vraiblonde]

And PS, looking at fictitious child porn is just as bad as the real thing. Anyone who gets off on young children in any capacity should be put to death.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Yeah, you may "accidentally" run across child porn in your internet ramblings, but I never have. And if I did, I would report it immediately.

You and Grisham may not want criminals locked up, but most of us do. We don't want these people free to prey on us or our children. If you want to live like that, go start your own country. This one is ours.

If it were up to me, all child sex abusers would get the death penalty - a real one, not the one where they live at taxpayer expense for 50 years. You can call that a "disproportionate sentence" if you want, and again I say feel free to go start your own country. This one is ours.

I never have, you may never have, but there are people who likely have. That was Grisham's point.

You continue to make accusations and claims that have no bearing on reality or the words I've typed. You lack any ability to objectively look at someone's post and understand what is being said without making those claims and accusations that aren't founded in reality as evidenced in multiple posts in this thread.

 

[vraiblonde]

I never have, you may never have, but there are people who likely have. That was Grisham's point.

Grisham (and you) can certainly advocate loosening our attitude toward criminals base on some hypothetical accidental kiddie porn enthusiast, and have fun with that. You're not going to get me to change my mind based on something that "might" happen.

You continue to make accusations and claims that have no bearing on reality or the words I've typed. You lack any ability to objectively look at someone's post and understand what is being said without making those claims and accusations that aren't founded in reality as evidenced in multiple posts in this thread.

Or perhaps it could be that your communications skills suck.

It could also be that you spewed without thinking, and now you're dug in no matter what and doubling down.

Could be that you are mentally ill and think you've typed something you didn't, or lack basic language skills and don't know what words mean.

It's always your fallback excuse when you get nailed being dumb: "Oh, you all just didn't understand!" Let me assure you, it's probably not everyone else in the world; it's probably you.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Grisham (and you) can certainly advocate loosening our attitude toward criminals base on some hypothetical accidental kiddie porn enthusiast, and have fun with that. You're not going to get me to change my mind based on something that "might" happen.




Or perhaps it could be that your communications skills suck.

It could also be that you spewed without thinking, and now you're dug in no matter what and doubling down.

Could be that you are mentally ill and think you've typed something you didn't, or lack basic language skills and don't know what words mean.

It's always your fallback excuse when you get nailed being dumb: "Oh, you all just didn't understand!" Let me assure you, it's probably not everyone else in the world; it's probably you.

It depends on how you feel our justice system should work. Based on quite a number of your posts regaridng the justice system, it's clear where you stand and it's clearly not worth pointing how that our system unfairly distributes punishment and that should be wrong to most people who believe the idea that we're a country of equal individuals.

Besides that, the subject of Grisham's point is very clearly stated and you called him a pedophile. I mentioned multiple times what my stance is and attempted to clarify a story you clearly misunderstood yet you continue to be disingenuous in your follow up posts. This certainly isn't the only time it's happened and you;ve made it quite clear over the years that whatever you have floating around your head is the absolute truth and nothing is going to change that so you back up your claims with wild claims, asking people to defend something that is oftentimes comepletely ridiculous and when someone can't/won't humor your request, you jump up and down with "see, I'm right!".

There's a term for that sort of thing.
Reductio ad ridiculum.

This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way.