Jesus thinks you’re an asshole too.
This is drifting really far off topic, but in a nutshelll, minors can’t give consent both because they can’t understand the ramifications of the choice they are being asked to make–the complex role sex plays in human relationships–and because they have poor judgement and are vunerable to manipulation by people who are more experienced than they. I teach high school, which means that for all practical purposes I am professional manipulator of children. Let me assure you that for the majority of them, this is a ridiculously easy task for anyone with any sort of emotional distance.
Of course there are adults who can be easily manipulated and children who have a strong sense of self, but age is a quick and objective way to draw a line: clearly, an infant cannot give meaningful consent and a 25 year old can. Where, exactly, in the middle to draw that line is a position that reasonable people can disagree about. But that’s beyond the scope of this thread. The AG clearly believes these imagesare child pron–that’s why he showed them. And that was a bone-headed and disrespectful thing to do.
Oh I forgot. Diogenes has the Holy Spirit.
That’s exactly what you did, when you asked this disingenuous question:
And by the way, the ISPs “disseminate” child porn in about the same way New York State “disseminates” cocaine through their criminal upkeep of the New York State Thruway.
You do not further the fight against child pornography, because you devalue any credible argument on this topic with your inane sputtering. I’d insist that it be fought in worthwhile and meaningful way, not be used as a smokescreen.
Even Jesus said nasty things about Satan.
There is one more problem - the expense of buying the servers and the storage for this moronic request. Now, I work for a company that makes this stuff, but do you want your ISP bill to double so that the AG and his fellow freedom lovers will have more stuff to datamine? You think he’s going to offer to pay for storing this stuff?
They could spend a tenth of the money this would take and catch every child pornographer in the country. So why do they really want this data? Same reason they wanted the calling records, no doubt.
And you have law enforcement mining the New York State Thruway looking for violations. All kinds of violations. But that is okay by you is it ?
And you accept the mining of data, excuse me, personal effects of everyone at that other communication/transportation network, namely aviation, at the airports. And God forbid if they don’t check everyone including 80 year old grandmothers. But that is okay by you is it ?
If you insist, you might explain what my hidden agenda is if you believe my efforts are actually a smokescreen.
Perhaps I over-reacted, FD, but the idea that people deserve privacy in their legal personal affairs, and that cops, even the Attorney General, are not entitled to undertake fishing expeditions, is important. And nearly anyone will at least be tempted to misuse what they find. For example, wouldn’t it be wonderful to check out what the candidates from the opposing party are doing on the internet, just to be sure they’re not doing something illegal? And if you happen to find out their campaign strategy – well, it’s appropriate to use what you find.
See the problem now? You don’t have to have something to hide not to want to give carte blanche to a government agency to conduct a fishing expedition through your personal affairs.
I’ve already asked about your underlying motivation, but you refused to answer. I’ve drawn my own conclusion since then. You probably mean well, but aren’t very bright. You are the perfect arch conservative.
When is the last time you have seen every car in on the thruway searched? I’ll answer for you. Never. A warrant or consent would be required. And yeah, that is OK by me. When you arrive at an airport security checkpoint, it is not an arbitrary search. The law recognizes this a ‘consent to search’ on the part of the individual, and is limited in scope to those belongings that individual has chosen to bring to the security checkpoint.
This also is OK by me. Why do you hate the constitution so much?
There are no pictures of children being raped on the NAMBLA website or anything illegal. I am also pretty sure there is not a clip art archive.
http://216.220.97.17/ (link to NAMBLA’s website, not safe for work)
You’re underestimating the offense of the feds. They can, and do, and should, search the internet for child porn, and even pose as those interested, in order to catch these bastards. That’s analogous to state troopers cruising the highway or even setting up radar traps. The proper Thruway analogy is asking car makers to put in a strip recorder, which can be accessed any time by the cops, to see if you’ve ever sped any time.
What isn’t work safe about the NAMBLA website? They are a political organization that makes an argument for thier postions. It may be an argument that is distasteful, but how is it different from other organizations? They don’t have porn or anything like that on the site.
Why is it not work-safe? Because some companies log and check their employees’ URL histories, and merely going to a site promoting homosexual sex with underage boys would be enough to get an employee fired, or at the very least in trouble.
It does not promote having sex with underage boys. It promotes changing the laws related to having sex with underage boys.
Under the standard you give why isn’t the DNC’s website not work-safe? There might be some Republican employers who will fire their employees for going to the DNC’s site.
That’s utter malarkey. Unless, of course, you have any proof of such a policy at any US-located workplace. If you do, feel free to post it here.
There was a woman that got fired for the bumper sticker. So I don’t think it is a strech to think someone could be fired for going to the website.
Do you have a cite for people getting fired for going to NAMBLA’s site?
Conventional wisdom says that NAMBLA promotes having sex with underage boys, whether or not that’s what they really do doesn’t matter in the court of public opinion. Therefore your DNC/Republican argument is invalid.
There’s a vast difference between a website and a bumper sticker.
NAMBLA members have been fired. Stands to reason that visting their website can be cause for termination in certain cases (e.g.: the vistior works around children).
Point 1: Yes, they want to change the laws to make it okay to have sex with underage boys. So, obviously they think that sex with underage boys is okay. That’s a mighty thin hair you’re splitting.
Point 2: Perhaps, in some way, shape or form, it would fall in to the job description of a Republican “employee” to check up on the DNC’s website. Hell, it might even fall in to that job description to keep up with NAMBLA’s literature. This would not be part of the job description of, say, an employee of a plumbing parts distributor. It would be hard to explain “accidentally” stumbling on to NAMBLA’s website, a conversation which your unlabled link could instigate.
If you honestly don’t think someone could lose their job over looking at NAMBLA’s website, accidentally or not, you’re a FUCKING IDIOT.
Oh, and before you mealy-mouth your way around how one wouldn’t necessarily be fired, yeah. Maybe they wouldn’t be. But your reputation? You’re a pervert. Not only are you a pervert, you’re a gay pedophile.
True or not, that is very probably how one would then be perceived because that is how many people view NAMBLA. Here in Reality, it’s generally undesirable to be perceived as a gay pedophile.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you here (also not trying to drift off-topic, and my apologies if I am), but SURE, I’ll agree (somewhat) that minors can’t give consent (depending on the parameters of the consent in question). The problem with that argument is that we only seem to pull it out when it’s convenient.
Exactly proof of my point. If you (or anyone) wishes to claim that sex with minors is abuse because they can’t give consent, then why isn’t putting them in school abuse for the same reason? After all, they can’t give consent to that, either. You’re manipulating them, what makes it wrong for someone else to?
The only distinction that I can find is that we don’t object to them being in school, but we DO object to them having sex, so the whole “informed consent” argument is dragged out as a justification of our objection. That’s why it seems to be bovine fertilizer to me. There may be a good reason to prohibit children from having sex, but “lack of informed consent” isn’t it.
Age may be quick, but it’s light-years from objective. You might as well call gender an objective standard to determine voting status, or race to be an objective way of dictating who sits at the back of the bus.
I agree with you on the AG, though. Stupid and blatantly manipulative. If I had been in the room, I’d have told him to fuck off and left.
And then probably gotten arrested for “advocating” kiddy porn, or something equally stupid.
I’m starting to think I may have to get into politics after all.
Og, that would suck. I’d probably have to get my hair cut.