The Law Should we be punished for evil desires?

[Chief]

How about sheep. Would you throw people in jail for ******* a blow up sheep?

Are you worried?

 

[Evolved1]

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.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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.

Chief reckons downloading child pr0n is a victimless crime.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Chief reckons downloading child pr0n is a victimless crime.

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 pr0n

 

[owen87]

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 pr0n

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.

 

[Chief]

Chief reckons downloading child pr0n is a victimless crime.

Yep sure thing.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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 pr0n

A straw man?

I don't understand what you're saying.

It seems to me like a pretty straightforward assertion.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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 pr0n 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 pr0n is victimless in order to support child pr0n.
No doubt you will find some pedantic s**t to attack me for in this post.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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 pr0n involving a real child to someone doing weird things to an inanimate object?

Now it came apart as it was pointed out that child pr0n 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 pr0n 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 pr0n is victimless in order to support child pr0n.

I didn't say he supported child pr0n. 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.

 

[Crankyhawk]

That makes no sense.

How and why would any sane person "equate" child pr0n 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 pr0n for a victimless crime? WTF are you people smoking?

I didn't say he supported child pr0n. 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

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Chief explain it then. I don’t actually give a flying fork

But don't take him "out of context". Give me a spell.

 

[Chief]

I didn't say he supported child pr0n. I said he said it was a victimless crime

No I didn't.

 

[Crankyhawk]

No I didn't.

Thank fork you are here I am done trying to explain things to that pedant.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No I didn't.

You said: "Plenty of crimes are victimless. Who is a paedo victimising by looking at pictures they got off a Usenet group?"

Obvious answer: the child.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Thank fork you are here I am done trying to explain things to that pedant.

Yeah I imagine it can be hard trying to explain something that makes no sense.

 

[owen87]

No doubt you will find some pedantic sh*t to attack me for in this post.

He immediately breaks your post up line-by-line as trolls do.

I'm shocked to be here.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

He immediately breaks your post up line-by-line as trolls do.

Responding to a post point by point is now "trolling".

 

[owen87]

Responding to a post point by point is now "trolling".

Yes. You respond that way because you're a pedantic troll. You're well aware of this.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yes. You respond that way because you're a pedantic troll. You're well aware of this.

That's how you make an argument, by responding to the other person's points.

I'm not surprised to hear you don't understand this.

 

[owen87]

That's how you make an argument

That you assume everything is an argument, describes you well.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

That you assume everything is an argument, describes you well.

If two people are making separate contentions that don't match up, what would you call that?

You struggle.

 

[Chief]

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]

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 pr0n, 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.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Chief owen87 Victimless crimes?

German police shut one of world’s biggest darknet child abuse images sites

Boystown platform had membership of more than 400,000 international subscribers

www.theguardian.com

 

[Chief]

Chief owen87 Victimless crimes?

German police shut one of world’s biggest darknet child abuse images sites

Boystown platform had membership of more than 400,000 international subscribers

www.theguardian.com

No. Never said it was.