Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Enough to keep the law there? :p
The law years ago? A problem may have emerged.
we_R_DNA
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
Put your stuff down, on the table please. Go ahead, have a seat.
Let's see what we have, here:
A box of condoms, Astroglide, some pop-sickles, a McDonald's Happy Kid's Meal, hand-cuffs, duct-tape, a DVD of Strawberry Shortcake - Season 3, a single sock, a six-pack of Mike's Hard Lemonade, and a bandana.
Actually from ageofconsent.com on the Netherlands.
quote:
1. Has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 16 for all, sex between an adult and a young person between the ages of 12 and 16 is permitted by law, as long as the young person consents.
This might have been changed to flat 16, but only within the last couple of years.
Actually don't even need the parents permission. :wtf:
The Dutch. WTF.
Joss Weatherby
So by Erics gut reasoning, he is now reporting Tiesto, Ferry, AvB, and a e load of other craptrance DJ's to interpol because they molest children.
Obviously they use their sugary trance music to seduce the pre-teen set.
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
gut reactionary feelings will be the downfall of modern society in the west.
But second-guessing basic laws of personal consent and painting everything gray because you can tie it up in litigable drivel, that's not a detriment to "modern" society or anything.
I'll agree that overreacting emotionally isn't going to help anyone, but the fact that you can actually accuse people of reacting at all is the true downfall here; when people are killed or raped on film for the instant entertainment of people who sit comfortably in their rooms (at their parents' house, I might add), there is a problem with the extremely basic freedoms that civilization has formed to facilitate a healthy dynamic of survival. Pedophilia is a disease - a defect in certain, sick individuals, as it is so ing far from an act that could possibly be beneficial to any portion of society but the stimulation of reptilian inter-dominance - there is a reason it is so commonly found in people who are emotionally and psychologically crippled in some way, or have an extensive past of childhood abuse. We're not talking being attracted to 16 year olds or even what most laws typically stipulate - pedophiles prefer the exploitation of pre-pubescent children - kids who are not of breeding age and could not possibly serve a genetic purpose other than to satiate the frankly sick desires of sick people.
I am with you in that painting pedophiles as "evil" is quite reactionary, but painting them as deranged and in need of help is a psychological fact. There is an exceptionally potent taboo regarding it that likely draws from a number of standard, survivalistic resources in the general human brain, but just because the whole of society has painted it as such does not mean it is without reason on basis - after all, there is a reason why we do not eat our own , too, and there is a reason why people who like to do so are also sick. But when the sickness of an individual reaches to interfere with the basic consent of other citizens in a given populace, there is an understandable civic risk at hand you would do well to recognize before you paint others as "the downfall of modern society".
Joss Weatherby
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
But second-guessing basic laws of personal consent and painting everything gray because you can tie it up in litigable drivel, that's not a detriment to "modern" society or anything.
I'll agree that overreacting emotionally isn't going to help anyone, but the fact that you can actually accuse people of reacting at all is the true downfall here; when people are killed or raped on film for the instant entertainment of people who sit comfortably in their rooms (at their parents' house, I might add), there is a problem with the extremely basic freedoms that civilization has formed to facilitate a healthy dynamic of survival. Pedophilia is a disease - a defect in certain, sick individuals, as it is so ing far from an act that could possibly be beneficial to any portion of society but the stimulation of reptilian inter-dominance - there is a reason it is so commonly found in people who are emotionally and psychologically crippled in some way, or have an extensive past of childhood abuse. We're not talking being attracted to 16 year olds or even what most laws typically stipulate - pedophiles prefer the exploitation of pre-pubescent children - kids who are not of breeding age and could not possibly serve a genetic purpose other than to satiate the frankly sick desires of sick people.
I am with you in that painting pedophiles as "evil" is quite reactionary, but painting them as deranged and in need of help is a psychological fact. There is an exceptionally potent taboo regarding it that likely draws from a number of standard, survivalistic resources in the general human brain, but just because the whole of society has painted it as such does not mean it is without reason on basis - after all, there is a reason why we do not eat our own , too, and there is a reason why people who like to do so are also sick. But when the sickness of an individual reaches to interfere with the basic consent of other citizens in a given populace, there is an understandable civic risk at hand you would do well to recognize before you paint others as "the downfall of modern society".
Yes, but everything Eric said reeks of vigilantism, which is the basis for anarchy and then decay of society.
People taking the law into their own hands over things like this, especially things like child pornography where no victim is even present (sorry there is NO victim, they are pictures and videos, as in bits on a disk someplace) gives you the basis for an overly violent and reactionary society that will take any perceived moral or social injustice as cause for murder and mayhem. At that point who becomes right? Watch when that devolves into unadulterated rape and pillage, where the initial spark was vigilantism against pedophiles has now decayed into the full fledged rape of women and children en-mass because there are no laws.
There is a fine line, and vivid and child molesters are so far on either side of it that they are both horribly in the wrong.
Halcyon+On+On
I very much doubt vivid was serious about his commitment to legal transgressions though. If boris has already viewed child pornography as entertainment, he has already broken the law.
I do see what you are saying though - the will to incite violence against another human being, no matter the reason, comes from the very same source of base desires one might be possessed by to seek out child porn. The fact that violence is so much more a common staple of behaviour in our world is truly no excuse for its supposed righteousness in those willing to incite it against fellow transgressors. But a strong sense of inter-social justice is one of the very foundations of civilization and codified ethical conduct, whereas the extremely selfish will to violate another's body against their consent is an even baser act as it is one that merely perpetuates itself as both physical and psychological damage to an entire community of social creatures. Kill a pedophile and you've destroyed a bad habit; rape a child and you've caused trauma throughout an entire family for the rest of their lives. Do it more and more, spread it on the internet and you've incited something within a further network of people, enabling deranged behaviour and symptoms on an even wider level, inciting further violence and psychological discord.
None of it is "right" without a bit of moral cherry-picking, I'll agree, but a basic, social need to not rile up the roost is one of the most conducive things to a healthy, progressive society, able to focus on the dismissal of our frankly reptilian blips that occasionally arise in individuals detached from social reasoning and the fertile imperative that drives us towards positive networking among one another rather than the conceit of moral repression, abuse, and its manifestations.
Bottom line is that pedophiles and people who support them need professional help more than they need legal and social condemnation, much less direct violence, but their means of trade are becoming more complicated with the advent of mass communication technologies. So here we have an admitted purveyor of child pornography from Ukraine - what to do with him if he willingly supports what is basically snuff for snuff's sake? Rape, itself, is an act of violence, not sex - but I don't see vivid admitting to downloading videos of Ukranians or pedophiles being killed for their sheer entertainment value - are you sure their temperaments are reconcilable?
Joss Weatherby
But you are saying what Boris did is wrong on some fundamental level. Boris did nothing to anyone. He hasn't hurt any of the children he saw, he has never met them, or probably been within thousands of miles of them, and more than likely most of them are now older than he is (or the same age).
Him viewing it does not support it. He didn't pay for it or facilitate its production in any way. Again its a victim-less crime because there was no action against anyone else.
Like you said, transfer and communication of this material is all the more prevalent, and as such it is easier to access and no longer requires the monetary aspect to be viewed. This has not stemmed the tide of child pornography one bit.
People issuing violence against Boris for what is essentially a practice of free speech is disturbing. Its a limit of free speech. Its not speech we all agree with, but it is information. Information should not be penalized, even if it is the most vile subject you can imagine, because it creates a chilling effect.
Look at the sexting cases in the US. You have laws meant to protect children, child pornography laws, being used on children and ruining their lives. This is beyond absurdity. These laws are all based on reactionary moral arguments and not on the basis of rational thought or consideration for their place amongst the other tenements of free speech.
Again to clarify, raping children is wrong, molesting children is wrong, even consensual sex between young adults (12-15 year olds) is wrong (in most cases), but possessing a photo of the act, as a totally unrelated third party, should not be wrong.
Think of it this way, when the age of consent is below the age of 18 you can all you want, hell you can be over 18 and your partner under 18 and it can be perfectly legal in most of the US and the rest of the world, but if you take a photo of the act it is illegal. This makes no sense, you are committing the act in a perfectly legal manner and yet documenting it somehow is illegal and deems you a pervert.
Basically my point is that all speech should be free. Unless your speech causes immediate and undue harm or stress on someone (the yelling fire in a theater argument) then there is never a reason for it to be filtered, oppressed, criminalized or deemed immoral. Thats my stance and I am sticking to it.
Halcyon+On+On
What if I were to pay somebody to kill you in your home, would that also fall under my rights to free speech so long as the only action I took was the exchange of words or favours/money and somebody else did the dirty work? Only the killer should be held responsible?
Joss Weatherby
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
What if I were to pay somebody to kill you in your home, would that also fall under my rights to free speech so long as the only action I took was the exchange of words or favours/money and somebody else did the dirty work? Only the killer should be held responsible?
No, that is not the same thing. You are planning a crime, that is conspiracy which is a whole different set of circumstances unrelated to the idea of free speech.
On the other hand one CAN argue that if you were ever charged with conspiring to commit murder that you were just exercising your free speech rights, but usually those cases are brought on some other circumstance such as money exchanging hands which moves from an area of talking to actual actions that are set in motion to commit a crime.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
But second-guessing basic laws of personal consent and painting everything gray because you can tie it up in litigable drivel, that's not a detriment to "modern" society or anything.
I'll agree that overreacting emotionally isn't going to help anyone, but the fact that you can actually accuse people of reacting at all is the true downfall here; when people are killed or raped on film for the instant entertainment of people who sit comfortably in their rooms (at their parents' house, I might add), there is a problem with the extremely basic freedoms that civilization has formed to facilitate a healthy dynamic of survival. Pedophilia is a disease - a defect in certain, sick individuals, as it is so ing far from an act that could possibly be beneficial to any portion of society but the stimulation of reptilian inter-dominance - there is a reason it is so commonly found in people who are emotionally and psychologically crippled in some way, or have an extensive past of childhood abuse. We're not talking being attracted to 16 year olds or even what most laws typically stipulate - pedophiles prefer the exploitation of pre-pubescent children - kids who are not of breeding age and could not possibly serve a genetic purpose other than to satiate the frankly sick desires of sick people.
I am with you in that painting pedophiles as "evil" is quite reactionary, but painting them as deranged and in need of help is a psychological fact. There is an exceptionally potent taboo regarding it that likely draws from a number of standard, survivalistic resources in the general human brain, but just because the whole of society has painted it as such does not mean it is without reason on basis - after all, there is a reason why we do not eat our own , too, and there is a reason why people who like to do so are also sick. But when the sickness of an individual reaches to interfere with the basic consent of other citizens in a given populace, there is an understandable civic risk at hand you would do well to recognize before you paint others as "the downfall of modern society".
hold me.
here's a question for you- what percentage of paedophiles are rapists? are there people who are attracted to pre-pubescents that never act on their impulses? i find it interesting that someone who has an attraction to children is also likely (?) to force themselves upon them. when i see a hot chick in the street who wouldnt look at me twice, im not driven to kidnap and rape her. what is it about boris' that they can't show the same levels of restraint? ing children is obviously wrong (and many of them know it) so why can't they just have a wank and be done with it? what makes their sexual desires so much stronger than the rest of us?
FuzzQi
quote:
Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Again, pointing to Holland. Possessing and making child porn there was legal till the 1990s. Color Climax (large Dutch porn house, still in business) made dozens of hard core child porn videos/films, and they probably still would be if international pressure hadn't put the kibosh on it.
You can't really call the Dutchdifferent in many other regards either. They just seem to enjoy sex with children. The age of consent there is still 12 with parents permission. :wtf:
Japan has had the same issues. Their laws are really very lax on issues such as these.
All in all, molesting children is wrong, molestation in any form is wrong, but the social connotations of how it is viewed vary wildly even in similar cultures and VERY wildly in other dissimilar cultures.
Its not a cold cut case of "THIS IS WRONG BECAUSE ITS WRONG" like murder since there is nothing physically, in the most basic sense of the word wrong with sex in any form, but how cultures perceive issues related to it.
I am really just playing devils advocate here though. Boris is a twat to bring this up in public and expect a different reaction. On the other hand as long as he isnt out molesting children, what he does in the privacy of his home with himself is not really any ones business... and he shouldn't be making it other peoples business.
You can't fool me with your philosophy, I can read between the lines!
