From what I recall, Lindberg certainly wasn’t fooled-the man was a racist bastard, through and through.
So the guy isn’t charged with actually doing anything to a child – just receiving and distributing pictures. Why is that even illegal?
I declined to join the Scouts when I was ten or eleven because I was already an atheist, and didn’t care for groups and uniforms. But they’re still a great idea in principle, and I kept my Boy’s Life subscription for years. Still like to go hiking, just not in groups.
What? Maybe because someone WAS harmed-the child who posed in the initial picture? Even if this guy hadn’t taken them himself, he’s still exploiting those children and fueling the perverts who make this shit.
Dude, pull your head out. Do you really need to be told that child pornography is a bad thing? :dubious:
-Tcat
Well- of course- the MAKING of hard-core child porn is harmful to the child, and is a heinous crime.
But then after that you get into waters where things aren’t as clear. If the “kiddie porn” only involves nudity- no actual sex- it that harmful to the child? Some would say it’s just our Victorian prudishness that says “the naked body is an obcene thing”, an dthat “nudity is a natural and good thing”.
I know one can argue that buying kiddy porn aids ands abets the person who makes it, who possibly wouldn’t make it except for the chance someone would buy it. But since there were penty of sites where perverts would download for free their “work”, it seems like a lot of the current kiddie porn swirling around out there isn’t commercial in it’s original purpose. Then again- if one doesn’t buy it, but just looks at it- it’s going to be hard to say that that hurts the child who was the victim.
It has been hotly debated- even here- whther or not simple “possession” of “kiddy” porn should be such a serious crime.
Note- I am not advocating “free kiddie porn”- I am just playing the “Devils Advocate” and pointing out that not all agree that “child pornography is a bad thing”. It’s a complex moral subject, not a simplistic one.
Point taken, sorta. He didn’t join the BUF. But I didn’t capitalize “fascist”.
From the article cited in the OP:
I don’t think we’re talking about artistic nudes here.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
You have got to be fucking kidding. Some would say that Blacks are mud people. Some would say that Jews are Christ killers. Some would say that women are inferior to men. Some would say that might makes right.
Is the concept of “informed consent” foreign to you?
OK this is easy. Prosecute the commercial sites. And…prosecute the free sites. Do you really suppose that someone would post such pictures “for free” if there were no chance of them being seen? You are being disingenuous to the extreme.
Ah yes. Opinion is divided. Nothing to see here.
\
rjung- this is the post I was responding to. This posits that “child pornography is a bad thing” as in “black&white, no question about it”. I simply said that the issue of what dudes can currently be arrested for as “child pornography” isn’t such a simple moral issue.
I agree that it is not so simple. Imagine the following.
A father takes some family photos.
They are at a nude beach.
He puts the photos on a one of those sites where you post photos, such as http://www.flickr.com/, so that grandma can see it. He is too much of a newbie to realize others can see it.
End result: He gets arrested for kiddy porn.
Contrapuntal in your hurry to quote me, you left out a few things. :dubious:
I knew this was going to happen- to some people everything is SO black&white that even if one simply says “it’s a complex issue with no simple answer”- that they immediately point a finger at you and scream “you’re in favour of child pornagraphy!!!”. * You *are one of those morons.
Exactly what is and what is not “porn” is not an easy issue. Like I said- some say that simple nudity is “porn” and others say “it’s just natural”. However, I am glad you have such a simple mind that such weighty issues do not cloud your opinion, even for a second. As was said in “Time Bandits”- “You are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence”.
:wally
Although it must be nice to always have your mind made up, yours appears to have been 'short-sheeted"
Are you suggesting I left that quote out? Read my post again. Apology accepted.
Where have I accused you of anything? Yet you call me a moron and cite* Time Bandits * as your authority. Gosh. I see you a *Time Bandits * and raise you The Muppets Take Manhattan.
How about instead of asserting “some would say” you make an actual argument. Like, all on your own and shit. From your own mind. If you can find it. (I have a suggestion where you might look.)
You quoted me, but you didn’t seem to read those lines, and left them out of your commentary. Typical of those with a closed mind.
Well I did comment. I have twice made the point that all you are saying is “some say this” and “some say that,” which is true of damn near everything.
O.K. Open my mind. Make the argument that child pornography is not a bad thing.
Well, I’m not DrDeth, but I believe I did in post 50:
Ummmm, that’s not really addressing the point of whether or not child pornography is a good thing.
[QUOTE]
Are you suggesting that that post constitutes an argument? And even if it did, as Hamlet pointed out, what would it say about whether child pornography is not bad?
I wish to say that it is very difficult to reconcile the phases “child pornography” and “closed minds.” scott_plaid, there is a thread somewhere that is entitled something like “my unique situation negates your widely supported position.” Go read it.
It’s hardly “unique”. Many have been arrested for images that were “innoncetly nude”. Thus, under the current definition of “child porn that gets people arrested”- there is included a significant amount of stuff that many of us would not consider “pornographic” in any way. Then comes “art photography” of nude children. Most consider this 'art" as opposed to “pornography”.
Next- one can argue that simple possession of hardcore kiddy porn isn’t the heinous crime calling for a sentence 3 times that of Murder.
But- Hamlet - no reversing the debate. The debate was whether or not the issue of “all child porn is Evil” is balck and white, or whether there is room for a middle groud or realistic debate. That is what I am saying. You are trying to change the debate into “prove that child pornography is a good thing.” Even in Scott_plaid s excellent example it would be hard to say that it “was a GOOD thing”. :rolleyes:
I am not going to try and argue- nor have I argued- that “child pornography is a good thing”. :rolleyes: My point was simply that there is a substancial area of grey at the fringe of the definition of “child porn” and that some argue that the sentancing is way out of line for some violations. Again, to give my exact words " the issue of what dudes can currently be arrested for as “child pornography” isn’t such a simple moral issue."
You may think that the father in Scott’s example deserves 20 years in a Federal prison. I do not. I think that shows that the issue isn’t “simple”.
To put it another way- it’d be like I was saying “the Death penalty is a complex Moral issue, with no black and white answers”, and then dudes responding with “prove that murder is a **good **thing”. :rolleyes: