Victimless crimes

[azalea]

*refusing to get sucked back into winless argument*

I just want to clarify something -- JD, I know that there are already probably many pilots, surgeons, etc. are drug users, but at this point it isn't legal, so there aren't any problems arising from the government's allowing them to do it.

I haven't gotten a response about the child porn question: do you (meaning whoever) think it should be allowed if it uses only computer generated images of children?

I think it leads into an argument about whether porn cuts down on sex crimes because these people can "get it out of their system", or if it actually increases the chance of sex crimes because it "normalizes" these behaviors and serves to objectify the victims (they see the victim not as a human being but as a means to live out a fantasy).

Two recent incidents in the news -- the rash of victims of abuse at the hands of priests coming forward after many years (or in some cases simply reporting recent abuse), and the kidnapping of the 14 years old girl in the US midwest. There was also another case recently of a guy robbing a house, killing the grandmother who lived there and sexually assaulting and then killing her teen grandaughter. Also have been a couple of high profile cases recently of people in positions of power (political positions, etc.) being charged with posession of child porn in different forms.

I don't like the way a casual debate and exchange of ideas degenerates into attacks. We're not writing any laws here, can't we keep it nice? If people don't show respect for those with opposing opinions, they'll soon find themselves without anyone to have these fun debates with!

[Lizra]

I'm going to finish my wine, enjoy your back patting. All's right with the world now! Thanks Azelea.

[afro-elf]

I offer a toast to Afro Elf for calling the truce. Cheers!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea

If people don't show respect for those with opposing opinions, they'll soon find themselves without anyone to have these fun debates with!

I accept people's different opinions - just as long as they don't infringe on my individual rights. What is moral and what is not - is an individual thing.

Just to let you know - I disagree with people doctoring photos of children and turning them into pornographic pictures. Now should it be against the law? I'm not sure - I lean more toward no rigth now. It's a gray area - they are fake pictures. Yet if someone receives one of the pics and knows the boy or girl in the photo - then that's where I have a problem with it. We'll just have to see where this goes. However, I am completely against the government making it illegal for someone to just create the pictures in their own home.

[azalea]

And what of the effect of thse pictures on the incidence of sex crimes (if we're speaking of child porn then I mean specifically crimes against minors)?

(Aside: but if a person disagrees with you about what constitutes a "right" -- what then? You said earlier you support the KKK's right to speak, etc., but their very existance is based on the infringments of others' rights. This is not meant to be baiting for an argument or anything, I'm just curious.)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by azalea
I haven't gotten a response about the child porn question: do you (meaning whoever) think it should be allowed if it uses only computer generated images of children?

If it looks like child porn enough that they can't prove it's not child porn, well they will probably be in trouble under current law.

I think it leads into an argument about whether porn cuts down on sex crimes because these people can "get it out of their system", or if it actually increases the chance of sex crimes because it "normalizes" these behaviors and serves to objectify the victims (they see the victim not as a human being but as a means to live out a fantasy).

Does this logic apply to violence as well? How about marital discontent? Anti-government sentiments? Fart jokes? If we eliminate all the undesireable and anti-social behavior depicted in all media, would we all be better people?

Two recent incidents in the news -- the rash of victims of abuse at the hands of priests coming forward after many years (or in some cases simply reporting recent abuse), and the kidnapping of the 14 years old girl in the US midwest. There was also another case recently of a guy robbing a house, killing the grandmother who lived there and sexually assaulting and then killing her teen grandaughter. Also have been a couple of high profile cases recently of people in positions of power (political positions, etc.) being charged with posession of child porn in different forms.

So, a celebate priest, immersed in the holy church of christ, molests boys... and it's obviously the porn... even though some of the cases documented go back 30-40 years (the stone age of porn). Do you think it night be possible that the lack of sexual release might be the causal factor in the molestations. Should the church abolish the celibacy? probably... or at least make it voluntary (bonus god points or something).

The first amendment allows the free flow of all ideas. Actions incited by ideas can be legislated. Do you think if you were exposed to child porn that you would feel the urge to act on it? There must be some dementia existing a priori for there to be a market to begin with. Should it's distribution be discouraged by law? Yes, when a child is involved in it's production.

Abductions, kidnapping? Hardly crimes newer than celluloid. We just now have the mass media and technology to alert everyone the instant something happens anywhere. Like the shark attacks last year, it wasn't an unusual number, just a slow news year, until 911.

I don't like the way a casual debate and exchange of ideas degenerates into attacks. We're not writing any laws here, can't we keep it nice? If people don't show respect for those with opposing opinions, they'll soon find themselves without anyone to have these fun debates with!

Sounds good! These emotional topics make people feel that a criticism of their position is a personal attack because the other responds emotionally. It should be a debate if that is what it is, and not just reiterating a position without addressing the other persons concerns.

It's tricky if someone writes something to the effect that "everyboby who believes this are....". The ad ahominem attack tactic is the weakest.

Let's have a good clean fight. No hitting below the belt and no biting ears off.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
(Aside: but if a person disagrees with you about what constitutes a "right" -- what then? You said earlier you support the KKK's right to speak, etc., but their very existance is based on the infringments of others' rights. This is not meant to be baiting for an argument or anything, I'm just curious.)

They have a right to march and state their political views - they do not have a right to have hangings or anything. They do not have a right to overthrow our elected government either. Infringing on someone's rights and marching and stating political views are two seperate things. If they are prevented from marching - then that means the government can basically gag anyone they disagree with. Remember - Hitler first did away with things that the majority of people were offended by or that people wouldn't resist. It later moved to carting off people and the complete elimination of any semblance of civil rights in Germany.

On 42nd and Broadway outside WWF New York - they're is a racist black organization speaker. I'm not sure if he's part of Louis Farrakhan's group or not (Nation of Islam ). He stands there on the corner with about 10 people listening to him and cheering him on and denouncing white people and being just as racist as any KKK member. I don't agree with what he has to say, it's even basically directed at me, but he has a right to get on his soapbox and say it.

[BeardofPants]

Oh, I so wanted to bite some ears today!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Oh, I so wanted to bite some ears today!

Well. nibble... bend maybe.. but bite? heh I said "but bite". errrr

I think the refutation of your point by repetition of opinion made you...

BOLLOCKS!

uh, what was I saying???

Breaking News: President BoP bites ears!

When do we get the film. Oh, wait that would be wrong.

*goes to victimize self*

...and to think that this is my last elf warrior post

[BeardofPants]

Hey Cirdan, is it a victimless crime if A-E converts you to illogical non-sensical ill-typed er... "arguments"?

*Dances a little jig*

[afro-elf]

Hey who's scruffy lookin' ?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hey Cirdan, is it a victimless crime if A-E converts you to illogical non-sensical ill-typed er... "arguments"?

*Dances a little jig*

ice dandec bop. but what do youerlmeanw

what;'s happenming to me!

*picks up lint from scruffy little dance for thumb warmers*

[Wayfarer]

I don't agree with what he has to say, it's even basically directed at me, but he has a right to get on his soapbox and say it.

A wise man (Voltair?) once said 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to ensure you have the right to say it.

I think that's what's sadly missing in the world today... especially in the west.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I think that's what's sadly missing in the world today... especially in the west.

You want some more wars around here?

[Wayfarer]

I'd rather got to war than live in a culture where the elitist political left is waging a propaganda war against anything they dissagree with.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I'd rather got to war than live in a culture where the elitist political left is waging a propaganda war against anything they dissagree with.

Yeah, yeah. Why don't you talk to some vets sometime. Ask them which one they prefer. At least this way, you don't way up screaming in fear from horrible nightmares everynight. Unless of course you dream about Bill Gates.

[jerseydevil]

Neither the far right or the far left are right. They're both way too extreme - both want to restrict freedoms.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Neither the far right or the far left are right. They're both way too extreme - both want to restrict freedoms.

Yeah, it's unfortunate - everyone's got an agenda. And now Georgie boy is putting through legislation on pre-emptive attacks. Does this mean that NZ is going to get blitzed because of its "terrorist" anti-nuclear stance? Hey Wayfarer... You might just get a war yet. A bunch of angry maori's complaining about getting carpet bombed.

[Cirdan]

W just paid the oil companies to not drill in the nature preserves in Florida, where bro is up for re-election. 325 million to do nothing. I could have underbid that easily.

So, the extreme left and right have nothing to offer? I've been content to sit in the middle with the great mass of consumers hoping that doing almost nothing will prevent mistakes. But doing nothing achives little but a respite from the rigors of adapting to change.

The First Strike is essential to the strategic plan of the president to have a free hand to distract voters from any negative issues that might cause them to think rationally.

The opposition, I guess that would be Ralph Nader and a few hollywood pseudo-intellectuals (are them the elitist left propagandists oooh, scary) would have us turn the clock back to the sixties when anyone gave a damn about the future.

The fact is, the party is still rockin' and nobody wants the priests of the left and right to tell us to keep it down and make sacrifices for the good of, well, anyone else. So, gas up that SUV, fill the swimming pool, and see what's on cable.

Does the corporate takover of the world count as a victimless crime?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Yeah, it's unfortunate - everyone's got an agenda. And now Georgie boy is putting through legislation on pre-emptive attacks. Does this mean that NZ is going to get blitzed because of its "terrorist" anti-nuclear stance? Hey Wayfarer... You might just get a war yet. A bunch of angry maori's complaining about getting carpet bombed.

It doesn't require legislation to bomb someone. To actually go to war - a declared war - requires an approval by Congress.

Anyway - I'd rather attack someone first before they attack me with the biological weapons. And if you're talking about Iraq - they've already used them on their own people - so they're not going to have any problem using them on some one else. And is that the same way that there were preemptive attacks against Kuwait or against the Twin Towers by Al Qaeda?

We already are at war - and we will be at war for a while. As long as we are threatened by a bunch of fanatics.