Originally posted by Brother Edwinyes it is a persons fault and as for viewing child porn they deserve a lot more than what i mentioned before i didnt realise i could say a lot worse about these sickoes
You mention view and depict as being the same thing.
Is it a persons fault if they are attracted to children of a certan age and choose to look at porn on the internent hurting nobody rather than actualy going out and practercsing it?
Originally posted by Brother Edwin1)They are not hurting anyone.
I understand the makers of it might be wrong and cause children to be abused or whatever, fair enough, imprison them.
However as for the people who own download it and own it, why is it considerd wrong or more importantly warrants imprisionment?
1)They are not hurting anyone.
2)Surley its better they exorcise there lust over a computer rath ...[text shortened]... paid money for with money they earnt, why should the FBI have a say in what they can use it for.
As long as there is a demand people will have to make it.
As long as people make it children will have to suffer.
2)Surley its better they exorcise there lust over a computer rather than a actual child.
They should learn to restrain themselves. They should not be allowed to do anything that involves ruining and utterly destroying children's lives.
3)They might not nescceraly be phedophiles anyway. They might have it to add viarity to there collection or might just have it out of intrest.
My answers for point one still stand.
4)Its there computer which they paid money for with money they earnt, why should the FBI have a say in what they can use it for.
So are you saying nothing like that should be illegal? What if people like videos of people being raped? Someone has to make them. You could say the same about every kind of drug use. You could say the same about your next door neighbor buying a ICBM with their money. Also the points for part one still stand.
Originally posted by DraxusYou don't need to go on diplaying your ignorance. There is nothing wrong with my spelling of the adjective 'glaring'. There is alao nothing wrong with leaving the pronoun 'ones' to be understood in that context. Just BigDog trying to be clever.
I love it when people whose sole argument rests on poor grammar misspell words themselves 🙂
Don't hesitate, either of you, to ask if you require anymore guidance in the correct usage of the English language.
Originally posted by NargagunaHeh, thanks for the help. I'll make sure to consult you next time 🙂
You don't need to go on diplaying your ignorance. There is nothing wrong with my spelling of the adjective 'glaring'. There is alao nothing wrong with leaving the pronoun 'ones' to be understood in that context. Just BigDog trying to be clever.
Don't hesitate, either of you, to ask if you require anymore guidance in the correct usage of the English language.
bowman will be pleased at this developement.
......................
Pedophiles launch political party
From: Reuters From correspondents in Amsterdam
May 31, 2006
DUTCH pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations from 16 to 12 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage.
The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its web site it would be officially registered tomorrow, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"
The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.
"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad newspaper.
"We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said, adding the subject had been a taboo since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighbouring Belgium.
"We want to get into Parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg said.
The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan.
An opinion poll published showed that 82 per cent wanted the Government to do something to stop the party, while 67 per cent said promoting pedophilia should be illegal.
"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile campaigner Ireen van Engelen told the AD daily.
Right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders said he had asked the Government to investigate whether a party with such "sick ideas" could really be established, ANP news agency reported.
Kees van deer Staaij, a member of the Christian SGP party, also demanded action: "Pedophilia and child pornography should be taboo in every constitutional state. Breaking that will just create more victims and more serious ones."
The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed although it supports the ban on the trade of such materials. It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening.
Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said.
The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalising all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.
Originally posted by moweutCrazy foriegners.
bowman will be pleased at this developement.
......................
Pedophiles launch political party
From: Reuters From correspondents in Amsterdam
May 31, 2006
DUTCH pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations from 16 to 12 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking ...[text shortened]... ic and promotes legalising all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.
Originally posted by stockenTo many people believe that a child ( say 5 yrs ) should be taught all about the things that they should fear. Do not climb trees, do not walk alone, do not go out in the dark, do not talk to strangers, do not get wet, do not swim here, do not swim there,do not, do not, etc etc add you own. We must make kids aware of some things ( inc stranger danger etc) but all we seem to do is to teach them fear. We have created a fearfull society that is so desperate to keep people out of medical hospitals that we can not cope with the incressing level of phych problems. Stress ( or anxiety ) will become the number 1 killer in Australia. ( if not allready.)
How is a child helped by having the truth held from it? There are still many children so naive that they just walk into traps and end up victims.
That is how a child is helped by having the truth withheld from them. It is vital to let kids be kids and not teach them stress. At a young age they have no comprehention of what it is all about.
The number of children traumatised by all the truth ( all the stressed adults are the proof of this-my opinion.) far outway the kids that are hurt by not knowing.
Originally posted by jimmacI've had a similar discussion with someone a few months back. I'm not the one who says we should teach kids a lot of "Don't" to instill fear. A lot of restrictions can lead to a lot of tragedy when the child decides to break one, based on a previous experience that a "don't" wasn't really that important.
To many people believe that a child ( say 5 yrs ) should be taught all about the things that they should fear. Do not climb trees, do not walk alone, do not go out in the dark, do not talk to strangers, do not get wet, do not swim here, do not swim there,do not, do not, etc etc add you own. We must make kids aware of some things ( inc stranger danger etc) but ...[text shortened]... ssed adults are the proof of this-my opinion.) far outway the kids that are hurt by not knowing.
What I'm talking about will only put stress on the child when stress is needed.
Most cases of pedophilia acts are committed by people close to the family, or members of the family even. It's important for the child to know what to look for, because such an act can start quite harmlessly. When someone is touching the child excessively, (s)he should tell his/her parents immediately. If the parents are any kind of good parents, they will make sure it's investigated (no matter how silly the idea seem that the particular person in question is a pedophile), or at the very least keep a close eye on him/her. It's probably just a false alarm, but better to have 20 false alarms, than none and then it's over.
To tell a child: "Do not accept a ride with strangers", will not help a lot, since the stranger might be quite nice or authorative and have the child forget about that particular rule. To tell the child exactly what some people do, will have alarmbells going off inside the child when someone offers a ride not planned.
Make sure the child know a few basic truths. Like, as a parent, you will never send anyone to pick him/her up without first letting the child know. If it's an emergency where you had to send the cousin or whomever, make sure that person has a cellphone along so the child can confirm with you before accepting the ride. Or have a person that you've previously agreed with the child might come pick him/her up. Children are exceptionally good at following rules so long as they make sense. To flod a child's head with nonsense restrictions like: "You don't get this before you clean your room or do your homework", "Don't kick ball outside", "Don't this" and "Don't that", will no doubt have the child question how important this "Don't accept unplanned rides" really is. There are a few very important "don't", and they shouldn't be drowned among a whole lot of "should". If the child breaks a should, don't be too hard. That's what children do after all. If the child breaks a don't, make sure (s)he realises just how worried you get when that happens and why (s)he must not do that.
This is not about putting excessive fear onto the child. It's about letting the child know what some (wo)men will do and make sure the child understand just how extremely important some rules are. Any good parent will keep a good dialogue going with his/her child to let it vent emotions of anxiety. The child must feel safe to tell the parents anything. Let your child know that no matter what (s)he's done, it's always ok to tell you about anything that's out of the ordinary.
Anything at all.
When I was little we always had this before-bed talk. I didn't realise then what it was all about, but me and my siblings would tell our parents what had happened during the day and also what we liked and didn't like about the day. It was mostly fun and it was a good way for my parents to be aware of what was going on in our lifes. Some families have this talk over dinner, but it's easy to miss out on things because the kids wants to go out to play fast and will probably leave "unsignificant" details about the day unsaid. The before-bed talks was a great way to unwind and get ready for sleeping. Kinda like bedtime stories, but more worthwhile.
But it will only work when the child knows that whatever (s)he does, it's ok to tell. You won't get all stircrazy, yelling and putting restrictions on your son/daughter. You will simply give him/her the evil eye (with a glimpse, if it's not all that important), and if it's really important explain why that was such a bad thing. Children are not stupid. They get it once they see the whole picture.
I hope I didn't bore everyone to death with this one. What I've said here is just common sense, after all. 😕
Why does it seem to be the case, that people that hate child porn (in all its forms) must prove ( in the eyes of child porn tolerants)that it is bad for you before it should be banned.(which it allready is.) It should logically be the same as a drug that must be proved harmless before its use.
Displaying a tolerance to child porn creates an air of acceptance so that the phedophiles feel that it is ok to continue. it is not ok. Do not accept any form of tolerance to child porn. We MAY feel for the perpetrator.
Please Please tell me how many lives do we need to destroy while we experement with tolerance before we ban it? Would someone that feels it is ok please answer this question? Please Quantify. i.e 1,10,1000. how many?
Any poor demented soul want to correct my spelling,show your lack of commpassion now. Preferable please refraim from publically displaying your inadequesies.
Originally posted by sasquatch672mutilation torture and murder just what these sickoes deserve
It looks as if Coconut ruined my fun. I was looking forward to outing him as a paedophile, and he's done it himself. Wow. Sometimes the - what's the word - sheer stupidity - of people amazes me.
As far as the thread's question - well, hell, I just don't know what would make a person into having sex with kids, or wanting to own images of that kin ...[text shortened]... them. This is about the only thing out there that I have a knee-jerk revulsion about.