The Law Should we be punished for evil desires?

Remove this Banner Ad

Evolved1

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 14, 2013
7,131
8,332
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Phil Ivey
Are you worried?
I'm not interested in any blowup dolls. I think we're crossing a fine line by taking a strong stance against victimless crimes. When they move on to real kids and sheep, lock them up and throw away the key.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
10,826
13,786
AFL Club
Essendon
I read his statement in context - he was using it as a straw man example of a crime which appears victimless but is rightly treated as abhorrent- and the straw was exposed later in thread that there is a real child that was hurt to make the porn
It depends how you want to segregate it really.

Being charged for downloading or possessing it is technically victimless, in that, it's already out there and the individual being charged isn't producing it themselves, or harming anyone directly themselves. But, if by downloading it, they're creating demand, they're still part of the cycle that creates more victims.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Dec 20, 2014
23,145
19,273
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I read his statement in context - he was using it as a straw man example of a crime which appears victimless but is rightly treated as abhorrent- and the straw was exposed later in thread that there is a real child that was hurt to make the porn
A straw man?

I don't understand what you're saying.

It seems to me like a pretty straightforward assertion.
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
17,168
11,905
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
A straw man?

I don't understand what you're saying.

It seems to me like a pretty straightforward assertion.
He was (I think) using it as an example of something which is not and should not be condoned and equating it to the victimless sex doll use.
Now it came apart as it was pointed out that child porn is not victimless.
What I was doing is pointing out you took chief’s comments out of context to make it appear he was stating child porn is victimless in order to support child porn.
No doubt you will find some pedantic sh*t to attack me for in this post.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Dec 20, 2014
23,145
19,273
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
He was (I think) using it as an example of something which is not and should not be condoned and equating it to the victimless sex doll use.
That makes no sense.

How and why would any sane person "equate" child porn involving a real child to someone doing weird things to an inanimate object?

Now it came apart as it was pointed out that child porn is not victimless.
How does that make the initial statement less weird?

It came apart? What does that mean? People pointed out that it was a truly weird thing to say?

In what universe does anyone mistake child porn for a victimless crime? WTF are you people smoking?

What I was doing is pointing out you took chief’s comments out of context to make it appear he was stating child porn is victimless in order to support child porn.
I didn't say he supported child porn. I said he said it was a victimless crime, which he did. And that's bizarre.

Don't spin me some bullshit about it being "out of context".

No doubt you will find some pedantic sh*t to attack me for in this post.
I'll point out that your post makes no sense.
 
Last edited:

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
17,168
11,905
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
That makes no sense.

How and why would any sane person "equate" child porn involving a real child to someone doing weird things to an inanimate object?

How does that make the initial statement less weird?

It came apart? What does that mean? People pointed out that it was a truly weird thing to say?

In what universe does anyone mistake child porn for a victimless crime? WTF are you people smoking?

I didn't say he supported child porn. I said he said it was a victimless crime, which he did. And that's bizarre.

Don't spin me some bullshit about it being "out of context".

I'll point out that your post makes no sense.
Chief explain it then. I don’t actually give a flying fork
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chief

Overlord
Dec 1, 1999
95,587
73,193
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Thank fork you are here I am done trying to explain things to that pedant.
I was talking about the act of downloading images, not creating images.

It's a valid argument to distinguish images from a doll in that with images the proximity of harm to the child is a lot closer than with a doll. But I don't think it is that much closer so as to be completely unlike using a doll.

Who is the doll moulded from?
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Dec 20, 2014
23,145
19,273
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I was talking about the act of downloading images, not creating images.
Being charged for downloading or possessing it is technically victimless, in that, it's already out there and the individual being charged isn't producing it themselves, or harming anyone directly themselves. But, if by downloading it, they're creating demand, they're still part of the cycle that creates more victims.
That's still not a victimless crime.

That's still trafficking in child porn, which revictimises the child.

It is participating in a crime after the fact.

It's a valid argument to distinguish images from a doll in that with images the proximity of harm to the child is a lot closer than with a doll. But I don't think it is that much closer so as to be completely unlike using a doll.
It is completely unlike using a doll.

There is no real child involved whatsoever in some weirdo banging an inanimate object. It's gross but no child was harmed.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad