Casuistry: The Good Pedophile?

Piscivore said:
Pride, and arrogance. How do you know I am not one of those "abnormal psyche people?" Notice I can spell it, and you can't- I guess I'm better qualified? What exactly are your qualifications? Lifegaer had his "own thoughts" about logic, that didn't make him an expert. And go ask Iacchus about his "own thoughts about human minds" sometime.



But you've admitted that your opinion is uniformed: "I am not sure of the laws" - "Now I am no expert at child pornography" - "BS I say we don't need no data"

What confidence should we have in this opinion, then?



What criteria are you using to determine what constitutes a "bad element"?

It is the use of these words: "bad", "losers", "stupid" - as well as equating the viewing of pornography with nuclear weapons- that betray the emotional content of your premises. Not all emotion is heat and passion- if you do not realize that, how are we to accept your qualifications as an "expert" on abnormal psychology, when you seem to lack knowledge of even the basics?



No, they disagreed with you on what actually constitutes a threat. There's a difference.



Nope. You've given more emotional reactions in this post that reinforces my assesment, actually.
Click to expand...
So you have an opinion about me. In fact much of your agument is derogatory statements about me so what? You think you are so smart, tell me what emotion I am feeling now? Am I happy ? perhaps sad? perhaps angry? or what? or am I laughing may ass off? HUH?
 
Dogdoctor said:
So you have an opinion about me. In fact much of your agument is derogatory statements about me so what? You think you are so smart, tell me what emotion I am feeling now? Am I happy ? perhaps sad? perhaps angry? or what? or am I laughing may ass off? HUH?
Click to expand...

A little hostile, maybe. :)

I didn't claim I could somehow read your emotional states, I said your arguments were made from an emotional basis.

Did you feel that asking after your qualifications in the face of your assertion you are an expert in "abnormal psyche" is derogatory?

Was it derogatory to call prideful and arrogant your assumption there are no "abnormal psyche people" on this board and your declaration you are the "closest thing to an expert" here?

Is pointing out your admissions that your opinion is uninformed derogatory?

Was asking for the criteria are you using to determine what constitutes a "bad element" derogatory?

Was it derogatory to clarify my reasons for determining your arguments were made from an emotional basis?

Was it derogatory to suggest that an "expert in abnormal psyche" should have at least a basic understanding of normal emotional states, and a basic understanding of the construction of a logical argument?

Any chance you will actually answer any of the questions I pose?
 
Ceritus said:
But did he admit to harming anyone else?

ped·o·phile ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pd-fl, pd-)
n.
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

He seems to be locked up for a thought crime.
Click to expand...
I am betting that the legal definition is somewhat different from the textbook definition.

For the record though I think child pornography is disgusting and people who take these pictures or fund the taking of these pictures should be behind bars. No child deserve to go though such an ordeal. Regardless of what I feel the line is simple. Were any children harmed in the making of these fake photos and if so did he fun the people harming these children or harm them himself if not he should be a free man.
Click to expand...
Unless someone painstakingly drew all the no-no spots in all the pictures, the images or portions of images ultimately came from photos of nude children, and be they composite images, fakes, etc., they still contain child pornography and are still illegal.
 
Piscivore said:
This discussion is interesting, as I just finished reading Lolita.

Is there a difference in your mind between someone attracted to children that have acheived puberty but are legally below the age of consent, and those that are attracted to pre-pubescent children?
Click to expand...
To me, there is a huge difference. I have found myself admiring the form of a hot chick on many an occasion only to find some indication that the girl is underage - not that it's illegal to look or anything. However, I never look at 'little girls' in that way, ever, because I have no interest, and I would never Lolitify a young girl because even if I have her full and complete consent, with numerous witnesses to said consent or whatever, she's still a young girl and I still have complete control over what I do and say.
 
Dogdoctor said:
I am a psychic and I predict that in the future fake child porn wil be found to lead to crimes being commited and fake porn will be made illegal.
Click to expand...

As am I. I forsee people being born will lead to their death thus lets render child baring a murderous offense.
 
Dorian Gray said:
Unless someone painstakingly drew all the no-no spots in all the pictures, the images or portions of images ultimately came from photos of nude children, and be they composite images, fakes, etc., they still contain child pornography and are still illegal.
Click to expand...

I think the point of fake child porn is that pictures of nude children aren't used. Rather, baby-faced adults are photographed, and then the photos are doctored to make them look even more childlike.
 
jjramsey said:
I think the point of fake child porn is that pictures of nude children aren't used. Rather, baby-faced adults are photographed, and then the photos are doctored to make them look even more childlike.
Click to expand...
There are many different ways to fake it, and your suggestion may be one way. You're the expert.
 
I think the point is we can't lock up people on thoughts and feelings they have in their head, unless there is a sign of obvious future harm to society. A pedophile who obviously goes out of his way to keep from harming anyone, while it may seem sick to us none the less, is admarable in that he is going against his [sexual] nature to keep from harming anyone. Some of us could learn a thing or two.
 
I would commend him for not acting upon his natural urges and finding a alternative that doesn't hurt anybody. Like someone who loves murder playing grand theft auto instead of committing murder. I don't think he should be charged with anything because he didn't commit a crime. No crime was committed. Maybe we should ban Kill Bill for it's child pornography, no wait that's tha same as in this case. Doctered up images.

After all can a cop arrest you for possessing hemp.
 
As a previous poster pointed out (O so long ago), it pays to note the distinction between the legal aspects of the case and the ethical aspects. We strive to make the laws reflect, as closely as possible, the ethical ideal, but often the laws fall short - or go too far.

Given the OP's presentation of the verdict as a by-the-way and not an essential element of the inquiry, I think the discussion here should focus not on the legal aspects - e.g. what US or UK or Norweigan laws say, but the principles upon which the case touches. Many posts here fulfill that requirement, but some confuse the issue, in my opinion, with references to legislation and court decisions.
 
Taffer said:
No, but he can for growing it...anyway...
Click to expand...

Oh!? I was under the impression that it was completely legal.

Child pornography is in no way ethical to me though. Porn isn't even worth it to me, no matter what kind anyways, so really I couldn't think of what it's like to be attracted to children.

Anyways, I find no logic in arresting someone for having a fantasy though. Dr. Adaquate said that the man specifically looked for faked images, so he never even had the intent to look at real child pornography.

I got a question though, If I look at hentai (japanese animated porn), is that the same as looking at a doctored image? By their (U.K. law)logic you would have to arrest even hentai watchers on that premise?!
 
Taffer said:
Not here it isn't. You can only grow it with a permit.
Click to expand...

Talking about the U.S.A. right? Why would you need to have a permit for a substance that doesn't even get you high, or does it get you high?
 
Nabisco97 said:
Talking about the U.S.A. right? Why would you need to have a permit for a substance that doesn't even get you high, or does it get you high?
Click to expand...

It can't, and the reason the laws are as they are is that there are people like Dogdoctor in congress.

(BTW, That was derogatory, Doc.)
 
Nabisco97 said:
Talking about the U.S.A. right? Why would you need to have a permit for a substance that doesn't even get you high, or does it get you high?
Click to expand...

Oh, right. Sorry. I'm talking about New Zealand.

You're right, it doesn't get you high. But here, Hemp is classified the same as Cannabis (which is very dumb). There are legislations in the works to fix this, however.

The main problem is that, while Hemp doesn't get you high, Cannabis does, and the two are identical in form when grown.
 
Taffer said:
Oh, right. Sorry. I'm talking about New Zealand.

You're right, it doesn't get you high. But here, Hemp is classified the same as Cannabis (which is very dumb). There are legislations in the works to fix this, however.

The main problem is that, while Hemp doesn't get you high, Cannabis does, and the two are identical in form when grown.
Click to expand...

Just to split hairs a bit, it's probably worth commenting on the distinction between being arrested for possession of hemp, vs. being successfully prosecuted for same.

As noted, many juristictions make no distinction between narcotic cannabis and non-narcotic hemp. But even if they did, could a law enforcement officer distinguish one from the other if he were to discover, say, a 100 pound bale in the back of my car? Even if I could, eventually, prove that the material was of the non-narcotic variety, and that I needed it to support my 30-yard-a-day rope-making habit, I really doubt the officer would take my word for it and let me off with a warning!
 
me

Nabisco97 said:
Talking about the U.S.A. right? Why would you need to have a permit for a substance that doesn't even get you high, or does it get you high?
Click to expand...

I find it astonishing that you need a permit to grow ANYTHING.
 
Re: me

billydkid said:
I find it astonishing that you need a permit to grow ANYTHING.
Click to expand...

Well, the governement needs more money so that they don't have to work hard by minimizing government that does nothing or even hurts it's own people. These issues get them elected after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom