|
This just in: Boris is an admitted pedo (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
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? |
A combination of things, at least in my opinion.
- A desire to control. Pedophilia could be considered more of a power perversion than that of a sexual perversion. Sex = power, and exploiting someone sexually, rape, is probably one of the ultimate power highs for these people. A child is just an easy target.
- Social taboo and the understanding that they can never act on their desires in any sort of legal fashion. They act out violently because of this. Sort of a perverse exaggeration of "in for a penny, in for a pound."
- The cyclic nature of abuse.
|
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by FuzzQi
You can't fool me with your philosophy, I can read between the lines! |
Yea I really can't think of the word Dutch with out mentally attaching oven after it. :( |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
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. |
But are we still talking wrong on a legal level or on a fundamental level?
When boris gets out the KY, lights some candles, arranges his stuffed animals around his desk and locks his bedroom door so he can load up soulseek and punch in a string of kiddy fiddler lingo to his search function, is that not a conspiracy to commit the clearly stated crime of possession of child pornography?
Before, you tried to reconcile pedophilia with violence, but now it's not the same thing when it no longer supports your argument? It should not be on the same legal or fundamental moral terms because one can possibly be shed in the same light as freedom of speech and information (another completely debatable corner) whereas violence and murder says nothing whatsoever and is fundamentally inert? There may be moral cherry-picking going on with the terms the current laws put things in (to which you gave several fantastic examples of the law being bent to retarded means) but you're shuffling around below the cherry trees, picking up watermelons. :p
Freedom of speech should not be absolute, because freedom is not an absolute given in any circumstances. Ever. When you grant freedom to one entity, you are taking it from another - there is definitely a degree to which this is not true, but when we speak about the rights of a given citizen, there comes a point where you're no longer reaching into the ethers of liberty and the current criteria for human rights, and you are in fact subjugating an already existing entity or person by means of stripping away their "freedom" to act to a personal sense of moral justice.
There is a very American kind of imperative at play, I think, where freedom of information and speech must be maintained to levels that at times may disagree with the grain of things; where it is held that, constitutionally, freedom of speech is paramount because it brings us closer to a more productive, healthy society and government, or at least one able to recognize individual liberties and necessary revolutions. Once more, in a sense, this is true, but there are limits to which it is conducive to rationality and the greater good of a populace - your example was yelling fire in a crowded theater, an act that may bring harm to anyone who topples over themselves in good faith. This is all well and good, but doesn't the demand for illicit entertainment also bring about the possibility for harm to those unwillingly involved? Does it not create a sort of market for crime? Is this kind of freedom not conspiratorial in the sense that it profits (economically or not) from the strict violation of others' freedoms to basic, physical consent? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| This good cop/bad cop is exhausting. Might makes right is so much more cozy when you don't ever have to approach it on a realistic level. :p |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
depends on the age imo
anything over 14 years old is ok i guess. Ask colonelcrisp. |
|
|
| bananas |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
:stongue: you're all a bunch of fags lol |
|
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Boris, given what this thread is, I'm not sure it's something I want to discuss with you.
Your response/justification... I can only say that most people would MAKE A POINT to avoid seeking or watching the material that you have described. |
i cannot argue here. all i can say is that i'm not in the "most people" here  what else can i say..
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
also the perverse vigilantism of Eric is disturbing and is equally disturbing at that. Twats like him and Slylee who go with their gut reactionary feelings will be the downfall of modern society in the west. |
:wtf: funny. it's like you read my thoughts. almost literally :wtf:
expect that your english is better:o
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Again its a victim-less crime because there was no action against anyone else. |
legally speaking, a crime cannot be constituted if one of its essential elements is missing - the victim (please take in mind that by victim the law understands not only physical entities - humans, but also abstract non-tangibles e.g. public interest, state security etc.) hence, no victim = no crime
| 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? |
hal, nothing personal, but you have a somewhat limited understanding of the law in general and crime in particular. the crime would have taken place only if you actually paid the hitman or solicited him in his unlawful deed. telling someone to go kill another person is not a crime. even if they go and kill em. you can only be prosecuted in relation with that murder if you have aided the murderer in any way: paid him, organized the murder or his escape, supplied him with information on the victim's routine, location, supplied him the weapon, tools for breaking into the house, hid him from the authorities after the murder etc. etc. etc.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
If boris has already viewed child pornography as entertainment, he has already broken the law. |
see above |
|
|
| jonSun |
| Boris, i don't think anyone really thinks your a pedo. They are all just giving you . |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonSun
Boris, i don't think anyone really thinks your a pedo. They are all just giving you . |
your you're your you're your you're
:p :p :p |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by boris_the_bear
your you're your you're your you're
:p :p :p |
ur |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonSun
ur |
 |
|
|
| EricB. |
| yup im a vigilante. ill protect a little kid the same way I'll protect a senior citizen or someone in my family. you dont have to do anything illegal to them to make me crack you in the face. All you have to do is step outof line |
|
|
|
|
