The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?

[The Atheist]

I can only surmise that things are different for a woman, particulary when she is past menopause.
I only brought them up as a metaphor for strength, character and conviction. As you well know.

I see the water supplies in Copenhagen might not have been fixed after all.

That is possibly the most offensively, self-flagellating load of utter crap I've ever seen. And downright offensive to Slingblade.

Yeah, show how big they are, mate - abuse a woman. Tough guy!

 

[dann]

For Danes only, DD. RIGHT NOW on DR1, but you can watch it online too. A Danish documentary series about sexual abuse of children and how the victims still have to try to cope with their traumatic experiences as adults.
Sig det ikke til nogen. (The Danish title means Don't tell anyone)

 

[DanishDynamite]

I see the water supplies in Copenhagen might not have been fixed after all.

That is possibly the most offensively, self-flagellating load of utter crap I've ever seen. And downright offensive to Slingblade.

Yeah, show how big they are, mate - abuse a woman. Tough guy!

When you have something of interest to impart, please do so.

 

[DanishDynamite]

For Danes only, DD. RIGHT NOW on DR1, but you can watch it online too. A Danish documentary series about sexual abuse of children and how the victims still have to try to cope with their traumatic experiences as adults.
Sig det ikke til nogen. (The Danish title means Don't tell anyone)

dann, did you not understand what I said previously regarding your opinion?

 

[dann]

You might want to listen to four victims of paedophiles ... well, no, probably not.

 

[DanishDynamite]

You might want to listen to four victims of paedophiles ... well, no, probably not.

I've listened to them already. What might possibly be your point?

 

[dann]

Nothing. If the episodes didn't teach you anything the first time you saw them, it probably won't do you any good to watch them again.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Nothing. If the episodes didn't teach you anything the first time you saw them, it probably won't do you any good to watch them again.

It is of no interest whether they "tought" me something. It is only of interest whether they affected my opinion regarding the OP. A subject you cannot be involved in.

 

[dann]

Tought you nothing at all, then. I didn't tought it would.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Tought you nothing at all, then. I didn't tought it would.

It tought me nothing I didn't already know.

Come now, dann, show a bit of courage! Show a bit of manliness! Open a thread on your political views or lack of same! You know you want to.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are very good at false abstractions, Kevin. That, however, does not make it a question of...

More straw, more appeals to emotion, more personal attacks.

To sum up, you cannot defend or support anything you say except with variations of "Everything I say is obviously true because child rape is horrible!" and "If you are willing to discuss any aspect of the issue rationally, it follows that you are a closet paedophile and I am not! Not me, no way!".

I think we're done. We eventually prodded you into admitting you had nothing intelligent to say about the thread topic, and I expect with further prodding you would end up admitting you have nothing to intelligent to say about the victim impact statement.

 

[dann]

I think that most people are able to judge for themselves if Kevin's summary fits my post or not.
Thank you, Kevin!

 

[DanishDynamite]

I think that most people are able to judge for themselves if Kevin's summary fits my post or not.
Thank you, Kevin!

Your post is irrelevant. Try to understand this simple point. Thanks.

 

[The Atheist]

When you have something of interest to impart, please do so.

I've met some empty-headed excuses for people in my time, but you are close to taking the biscuit.

I find it helpful to converse occasionally with people at your level - to try and plumb the depths of ignorance you're capable of, just for my own satisfaction. It enables me to have sensible conversations about how some invertebrates have higher intellect than some people. I wouldn't even scrape you off my shoe, mate. I have to throw 'em out and start again.

Here, darling, let me introduce YOUR contribution to the thread. Read 'em and weep, you feeble little man:

Shouldn't you be off somewhere organizing a revolution? Or are you truelly without any convictions or balls?

There is always an element of a pissing contest when men discuss. Learn to live with it.

Certainly you don't. It just makes your opinions irrelevant when discussing what should or should not be the law.

The little wrinkled sack is an important part of me, just as your hole is an important part of you. Neither is an important part of any argument I make, unless said argument concerns these bits.

I can only surmise that things are different for a woman, particulary when she is past menopause.

I only brought them up as a metaphor for strength, character and conviction. As you well know.

As I said, no balls.

Do I detect a tendency to cowardness? Yes, I think I do.

Any new thoughts on having the balls to defend your odd political view? No?

I can only surmise that you are a poster of the female persuasion.

It tought me nothing I didn't already know.

Come now, dann, show a bit of courage! Show a bit of manliness! Open a thread on your political views or lack of same! You know you want to.

 

[Piscivore]

For some weird reason Piscivore wants to export his defence of paedophiles to a different thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the theme.

It was a joke.

 

[dann]

My answer wasn't.

 

[dann]

Does this sound familiar?

The homepage included a series of articles appearing to sanction sexual relations between children and adults. In a section entitled "Paedophilia, Science, and Self-Deception," the group wrote: "Voluntary sexual relations between children and adults do not cause any psychological harm other than the problems associated with discovery and intervention."

http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,692322&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL The members of the group, of course, were all paedophiles. Self-Deception, indeed!

To me it appears to be very similar to this:

the available evidence based on studies of people involved in underage sex showed that consensual sex could not be scientifically linked to any harm even if one or both participants were underage.

Another case will come to an end later this week. The abusive father appeared to be a member of this group of Danish satanists, whose leaders happen to be very angry at CFLarsen and me. Cannot see why.
However, I don't think that they had any knowledge of the activities of the psycho dad!

 

[slingblade]

Your post is irrelevant. Try to understand this simple point. Thanks.

DD, just a common courtesy for someone very common:

You're an ass. And you're on ignore. Have a nice life.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Does this sound familiar?
http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,692322&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL The members of the group, of course, were all paedophiles. Self-Deception, indeed!

To me it appears to be very similar to this:

Another sterling bit of logic, Dann.

You determine that bad people have stated that X is the case. You conclude that therefore X is false, and people who state that X is the case are bad.

That's only the start though. You also play on the ambiguity between "child" and "underage", to imply that a statement about underage people (who can be as old as 19 depending on location and situation) is "very similar" to a statement from a self-avowed paedophile group which might well have been made regarding prepubescents. (There is, however, not enough information in your link to determine whether the quoted text used "children" to refer to prepubescents or to seventeen year olds).

It's probably a good thing that you assiduously avoid ever stating your actual opinion or position on anything. Whatever your position is, this kind of sloppy thinking would not make it look very good.

 

[dann]

You determine that bad people have stated that X is the case. You conclude that therefore X is false, and people who state that X is the case are bad.

No, Kevin, I talk about paedophiles, not bad people in general. And I cannot see any conclusion anywhere, but if you conclude that people who state that

"Voluntary sexual relations between children and adults do not cause any psychological harm other than the problems associated with discovery and intervention."

are bad, then it's fine by me!

That's only the start though. You also play on the ambiguity between "child" and "underage", to imply that a statement about underage people (who can be as old as 19 depending on location and situation) is "very similar" to a statement from a self-avowed paedophile group which might well have been made regarding prepubescents. (There is, however, not enough information in your link to determine whether the quoted text used "children" to refer to prepubescents or to seventeen year olds).

Let's take a look at your own statement, Kevin:

the available evidence based on studies of people involved in underage sex showed that consensual sex could not be scientifically linked to any harm even if one or both participants were underage.

Is it really necessary to remind you that in your statement about underage people they can be as young as six months old?

It's probably a good thing that you assiduously avoid ever stating your actual opinion or position on anything. Whatever your position is, this kind of sloppy thinking would not make it look very good.

So on the one hand you are outraged that I find paedophilia bad, but on the other hand you criticize me for never stating my actual position.
Another sterling bit of logic, KEVIN.