Dumbass Alert: Do not pawn the laptop on which you keep child porn

mom4 said:
Insein, I see what you are saying, but there has to be a balance. That is the key. You can't say "Allow drunk driving" bc somewhere down the line, someone might take it too far and arrest someone for taking cough medecine and driving.

Again, if people will not impose limits upon themselves, they give up the right to govern themselves.


But who decides when your right to givern yourself should be taken away? If we had certain groups of people in office, it might be a MORE SEVERE crime to make defmaing remarks about certain groups of individuals. Because i speak my mind and dont like a certain group of people then if they become in power i have my right to govern taken away?

Its a dangerous precendent and someone HAS to draw a line somewhere. Child porn really wasnt the line i wanted to draw it at but with drugs, drunk driving, fatty foods, cigarettes, so many things that are "Bad for you in society" its only a matter of time that talking bad about people, having sex because of disease, getting too much sun, etc will all be banned because "we dont know how to govern ourselves."
 
See, insein...here is one fundamental difference between you and Me.

You are scared to draw ONE line because it may not be correct. Thus you don't draw lines.

A line drawn in err is better than none drawn at all.
 
-=d=- said:
See, insein...here is one fundamental difference between you and Me.

You are scared to draw ONE line because it may not be correct. Thus you don't draw lines.

A line drawn in err is better than none drawn at all.

explain? I thought i established that the line needs to be drawn and i reluctantly did so despite the unpopularity of the topic at hand because I have seen what it has lead to and I know where it will lead to in the future.
 
insein said:
You miss the point because of the nature of the crime. Child pron is reprehensible and you cant get your mind past that to see that laws are being created to take individual freedoms away. If eating red meat is declared by the government to be just as wrong as doing drugs, then we all goto jail except for the vegetarians or we all become vegetarians. We are all then criminals for doing what we always did, eating red meat. Are we actually criminals though?

You keep saying I miss the point - perhaps that's because you've failed to make your point in any substantially supportable way. It seems to me that you're simply grousing about having to obey a law with which you disagree and you worry that limits on child pornography could have unintended consequences elsewhere. Is it then your position that child pornography should be legal because laws which make it a crime could eventually metamorph into laws which restrict the fat intake in your diet? That's quite a stretch.

Your McDonald's example doesn't hold water until someone actually does pass a law which limits your purchases at a fast food restaurant. If that ever happens, you can bet your butt that I'll be doing lots of letter writing and protesting.

And I have to take issue over the lack of regard you seem to have for your fellow citizens as evidenced by your opening statement:
We the people go along with what were told is good for us without thinking of the consequences. as smart as many of us think we are, we can all think of a time we were duped into adopting something that was as advertised.

Simply because there are laws out there with which you disagree, does not mean that people were "duped" into getting them passed. It could just mean that there is a majority of other folks out there who do not share your views or your priorities on some issues. That doesn't mean that they should be viewed with contempt. And I can refute your argument simply by referring you to the thread on the "Equal Worth Amendment". Lots of folks saw through that charade.

This assertion also holds water about as well as your average sieve:
So under your theory if that were to occur, we just roll with it and say oh well no more chocolate for me and label those that do eat it criminals? Overnight that makes them bad people because a law said they are?

If there were a law passed that prohibited chocolate consumption, then it is our duty to obey it. It is also our right to protest it and to work to have it repealed. And no law would retroactively create a class of "bad people". One cannot attach a penalty to an act which has yet to be proscribed.

So perhaps I do miss the point you're trying to make. Maybe it's because I'm a bit dense and maybe it's because that point is hidden among some rather weak supporting arguments.

If you're arguing against the insidious effect of creeping governmental regulations - that's fine. I can understand that. What I can't understand is why you would choose child pornography as the nail upon which to hang your hat.
 
insein said:
But who decides when your right to givern yourself should be taken away? If we had certain groups of people in office, it might be a MORE SEVERE crime to make defmaing remarks about certain groups of individuals. Because i speak my mind and dont like a certain group of people then if they become in power i have my right to govern taken away?

Its a dangerous precendent and someone HAS to draw a line somewhere. Child porn really wasnt the line i wanted to draw it at but with drugs, drunk driving, fatty foods, cigarettes, so many things that are "Bad for you in society" its only a matter of time that talking bad about people, having sex because of disease, getting too much sun, etc will all be banned because "we dont know how to govern ourselves."

Yeah... child porn is a pretty clear-cut case of wrong. Probably best to argue your point in the next thread about MJ or prostitution.
 
Merlin1047 said:
If there were a law passed that prohibited chocolate consumption, then it is our duty to obey it. It is also our right to protest it and to work to have it repealed. And no law would retroactively create a class of "bad people". One cannot attach a penalty to an act which has yet to be proscribed.

So perhaps I do miss the point you're trying to make. Maybe it's because I'm a bit dense and maybe it's because that point is hidden among some rather weak supporting arguments.

If you're arguing against the insidious effect of creeping governmental regulations - that's fine. I can understand that. What I can't understand is why you would choose child pornography as the nail upon which to hang your hat.

Like i said, i didnt want it to seem like child porn was my staple for this. Its just a cascade of things that ive seen lately as i stated in a thread above.
 
insein said:
Like i said, i didnt want it to seem like child porn was my staple for this. Its just a cascade of things that ive seen lately as i stated in a thread above.

Okay, perhaps we're narrowing this down a bit.

Let's see if I've got this right. As I read it, your priority is unencumbered activity by the individual citizen with government having little to nothing to say about what you do or how you do it.

If that's the case, then I still have to disagree. That's anarchy, plain and simple. We live in an ordered society. I can't run down the interstate at 150 mph while someone decides to take a Sunday stroll down the lane divider stripe simply to see how his Birkenstocks feel.

Likewise, there are some things which are so reprehensible that outlawing them is worth any potential risk of unintended consequences. Protecting children from predation is one of the areas which certainly justifies governmental influence. Deciding how many calories from fat can be in your Big Mac is not.

I agree that nothing comes for free. For every well-intentioned law that we pass, there are dozens of special interests who would love to piggy-back their limited agenda onto the basic premise. But this is a balancing act we have to perform every day - we have to decided what is and is not worth the risk. That is the nature of society, it is also the nature of democracy.
 
insein said:
As i stated above, you cant have the government stopping you from making bad decisions... If we keep arresting every drug addict on the street or every guy that downloads an image, we ignore the problem. We say we're doing somehting for the good of the people when we are simply trying to set an example to deter others. You dont punish the true criminals.

So what do you propose? That we don't punish anyone for anything? With any punishment, you are treading on someone's "right" to choose his own course of action. Someone has to draw the line somewhere. Of course it is the government. That's why they are there--- to govern.

I would also respectfully argue that the end user is the problem. The drug market doesn't exist bc someone want to sell drugs. It's there because people want to use drugs. In the case of child porn, the end user creates a market for this filth. Creators may have extra charges for molestation, but users should be punished, too. To deter others, YES.

There is a marked correlation between pornography and molestation.
http://www.liccv.org/pornoisharmful.htm
 
Avatar4321 said:
Regular porn isn't victimless either. Some people just dont understand the extent it can warp your mind.

I don't think that adults should be limited in making the decision because of the morality or the mind warp that may ensue. Clearly an adult can partake in any action that you may find in pornography with another consenting adult without directly causing victimization such as child molestation. So long as consent is given I see no reason not to allow adults to make foolish mistakes.
 
no1tovote4 said:
I don't think that adults should be limited in making the decision because of the morality or the mind warp that may ensue. Clearly an adult can partake in any action that you may find in pornography with another consenting adult without directly causing victimization such as child molestation. So long as consent is given I see no reason not to allow adults to make foolish mistakes.

I understand. however, just because some people are fools doesn't mean I'm not going to be out there speaking against that crap. Better to inform people than let them suffer problems by being uniformed.
 
Avatar4321 said:
I understand. however, just because some people are fools doesn't mean I'm not going to be out there speaking against that crap. Better to inform people than let them suffer problems by being uniformed.


Speak as you will, there is nothing against the law that would keep you from informing as many people as you wish. I would even encourage it. It is only the making of laws against it which I protest. Those who want to be foolish have a right to be deliberately foolish and you have just as much right to educate them.
 
Police say a 43-year-old New Haven man left 304 images of child pornography on a computer he brought into a pawn shop.

Hey! Bullypulpit made the national news!!! :teeth:
 
mom4 said:
So what do you propose? That we don't punish anyone for anything? With any punishment, you are treading on someone's "right" to choose his own course of action. Someone has to draw the line somewhere. Of course it is the government. That's why they are there--- to govern.

I would also respectfully argue that the end user is the problem. The drug market doesn't exist bc someone want to sell drugs. It's there because people want to use drugs. In the case of child porn, the end user creates a market for this filth. Creators may have extra charges for molestation, but users should be punished, too. To deter others, YES.

There is a marked correlation between pornography and molestation.
http://www.liccv.org/pornoisharmful.htm

Im saying that we shouldnt have laws that protect people from themselves. We should and do have laws that protect people from harming others but we should not continue to pass laws that attempt to punish people for damaging themselves. In turn they should focus that energy and money that is being used to arrest drug USERS and DUI drivers, etc to helping them rid themselves of the problem. Mandatory AA meetings, school drug programs etc do little to help people rid themselves of the problem. We waste money on incarceration of these individuals and further ruin their lives without helping them to help themselves.
 
insein said:
Who then defines child porn. According to the law any person udner the age of 18 is a child. How many images on the internet of 17 year old girls do you think are out there that are passed off as 18 year olds? Whose to say then that you could think your looking at a "legal" picture then have it used against you when someone finds it on your computer.

Everyone here is proving my point. Child porn is something so unfathomable and despicable that we instantly real back in disgust and cast judgement on that person with no consideration of the matter at hand. If a teacher is accused of molesting a child, that accusation is more hamrful, than any crime he/she may have committed. If there is no evidence, no substantiation of any crime being committed, the teacher is cleared of their crimes but the defamation remains because it is such a horrible crime in many peoples minds that we dont care whether you are guilty or not. You were accused of it and that makes you guilty. :lalala:

I just see it happen in so many other areas of life. Take drunk driving. For Many people they can handle themselves in a normal manner after 4 or 5 beers. In most states though, 1.5 beers is all it would take for you to drink to get you a DUI. Yet every year we hear politicians wanting to lower the legal alcohol limit to where if your pulled over after taking cold medicine, you might get a DUI. Why do people go along with it? Because drunk driving is wrong. :lalala: No one stops to think that maybe ill be in that situation and then its not so wrong. No they say, dont be in that situation. Obey the law no matter how restrictive and ridiculous people make it.

So while child porn was merely the starting point on this, i used it to prove my point that if you try to argue against a law that is ridiculous because you can see where it will lead to, then you are labeled just as offensive as the person that committed the crime. Welcome to totalitarianism where people want to run your life.

You're kind of all over the place now, but let me see where I can jump in.

Let's say I have pictures on my computer of a girl who looks 22 or 23, but she is actually 17. If I can't tell, most likely nobody else can either so nobody would know, unless it's a highly publisized situation such as Traci Lords a few years ago. If someone sees the pictures and gets suspicious, they would have to track the model down and find out her age. I would think common sense would tell anyone it wouldn't be worth the bother. So, in the case of a 17 year old, it's far from the same situation as a 10 or 11 year old.

I don't believe anyone here is proving your point through the child porn thing. When this started, you were drawing a line between child porn and the criminalization of fast food, which was rather odd. All of this seemed to be making the point that child porn should be legal so they don't make other things illegal down the road. In saying this, you gave examples of things that were legal at one time and are now illegal. Hell, I'll add to your list and say that 150 years or so ago, slavery was legal and it's now illegal. I add it because, with the exception of pot which I'll grant is debatable, isn't it a good thing all of those are illegal? Isn't it good that a powder that eats away the inside of your nose and can leave a man paranoid and limp illegal? Isn't it good that a human being literally and legally owning another human being like a piece of property is illegal? These are signs that we have grown as a society and it's certainly not a sign of totalitarianism.

In my opinion, if you wanted to make the point you ultimately made, it would have been better to start with the DUI and alcohol content. In fact, the wave against anything remotely religious, and the misinterpretation of the Constitution to justify it, would be a good example as well.

Then again, maybe I just need some sleep. In any case, here's hoping McDonalds isn't closed down anytime soon. I'd miss the fries.

**I'll just edit and add here that laws against having child porn is not a crime protecting someone from themselves. If someone has child porn, then they had to get it from somewhere. The only way to stop it is make it illegal in every way, shape, and form. If it's legal to own it but not legal to make it or sell it, then basically all you have to do is not get making it or caught in the act of selling it. Some pervert could have a basement full of kiddie porn he filmed or shot himself, and if he's caught there's really nothing that could be done.
 

Forum List

Back
Top