Posted on 08/30/2011 3:00:44 PM PDT by topher
WINNIPEG, Manitoba August 30, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A young man who admitted to downloading explicit pornographic images since he was 12, has been sentenced to two years supervised probation after he was charged for possessing photos and videos of children as young as 4 being sexually abused.
Dr. Judith Reisman, a researcher on pedophilia and an expert on the insidious effects of pornography, told LSN that she is unsurprised that such a young man would be involved in child pornography. “Our government leaders allow pornography to pollute our once great nations and act surprised that we are breeding inhuman men, women and children unlike any that have existed before,” she said.
In a 2008 international sting against child pornographers Austrian police followed an IP address to a 15-year-old boy in Winnipeg, MB.
When Winnipeg police came knocking at his door, the boy readily admitted his involvement, said Crown attorney Terry McComb to Winnipeg Sun.
The police confiscated the boy’s laptop and discovered images and videos featuring girls as young as 4 being sexually abused by adults.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
“I’ve talked to tacticalogic before. He seldom gives an opinion but always tries to rip apart others. It doesn’t phase me”
Really? You seem pretty phased and riled up.
Giving an opinion isn’t always a good thing, by the way. My dad always said that opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and most of them stink. Opinions don’t necessarily matter in debate. The facts in question do.
I disapprove of what would probably be universally considered pornography, and I enjoy some of what more strident people would consider qualifies as pornography, but it's not something I actively pursue.
I'm for local communities being able to control it within their jurisdictions. I'm dead set against any notion of the federal government doing it, absent a constitutional amendment that explicitly enumerates that power and defines it's scope and limits.
If you wanted an absolute YES/NO answer, I don't have one for you.
The breakdown of society is the fault of men.
Men have abdicated their responsibilities as providers and protectors of morality, society, and their families.
This is what happens when they want all the privileges and freedom and none of the responsibility.
I’ll counter it’s the fault of women. Men have never done anything that a womwan hasn’t either encouraged him to do or allowed him to do
You may read anything into it that you like. Enjoy!
Should we ban alcohol?
I hope your evening is lovely.
Isn’t blaming pornography (which I would concede leads to unhealthy addictions in many cases) for the existence of pedophiles basically a failure to hold people responsible for their own actions? If addicts are responsible for their own addictions then we must also place the responsibility on those who commit the horrible and immoral acts.
“Man was made in God’s image - inherently good, but mortally flawed. Pornography does not have the power to destroy it. It is a symptom of the mortal condtion of man, tied to and dependent on the wants and needs of mortal flesh. It is something to be acknowleged as potentially destructive, and dealt with as any gluttony that can lead to addiction. It is not some omnipotent monster that we are powerless to do anything about.”
I like what you are saying here and I tend to agree with you.
So, now I am curious, if you are up for some healthy, non-emotional debate, about whether or not you think pornography should be protected by the first amendment. If pornography can, in fact, contribute to the decay of society and promote things such as rape and pedophilia, then it can be tantamount to shouting “ fire” in the proverbial crowded theater.
(I am not certain, however, if porn can be clearly targeted as the cause in those situations. Some studies show that rape rates decline when porn is readily available, so who’s to say that porn promotes evil?)
The question has strayed far from the thread, but I think it is an interesting one. I would like to hear your thoughts on it.
"As the chart shows, there were 2.7 rapes for every 1,000 people in 1980; by 2004, the same survey found the rate had decreased to 0.4 per 1000 people, a decline of 85%.
Official explanations for the unexpected decline include (a) less lawlessness associated with crack cocaine; (b) women have been taught to avoid unsafe situations; (c) more would-be rapists already in prison for other crimes; (d) sex education classes telling boys that “no means no.” But these minor factors cannot begin to explain such a sharp decline in the incidence of rape. There is, however, one social factor that correlates almost exactly with the rape statitistics. The American public is probably not ready to believe it. My theory is that the sharp rise in access to pornography accounts for the decline in rape. The correlation is inverse: the more pornography, the less rape. It is like the inverse correlation: the more police officers on the street, the less crime."
I hope your evening is lovely.
You bash others for making personal attacks but you seem to have no problem dishing out some of your own in my direction. If you're going to respond, how come you can't respond respectfully? Have I ever insulted you?
So, how exactly does my understanding that prohibition has failed every time it has been tried equate to me liking "drunk, drugged out women"? I actually don't like the idea of drunk, drugged out women, because I'm of the belief that those who engage in sexual intercourse with people who are intoxicated (and therefore unable to consent) are guilty of RAPE.
I know you can't change human nature. Anyone who thinks they're going to force everyone into some idealized notion of moral certitude they've imagined existed in days gone by will be sorely disappointed in the results.
No, that’s okay. Sometimes questions don’t have yes/no answers to them, especially when they have multiple parts (as mine did).
“I enjoy some of what more strident people would consider qualifies as pornography, but it’s not something I actively pursue.”
Not sure why, but the above sentence made me chuckle.
So, I know we are discussing the legislation of pornagraphy in general. If I understand correctly, you say that federal government should have no jurisdiction over it. Now I wonder, what about child pornagraphy? Do you think that it is reasonable for the federal government to make it illegal?
See my #110. It is almost unquestionable that easier access to porn increases the sexualization level in a society. There are both positive and negative effects that come along with this. That is why I think that all porn sites should be required to move to .xxx domains and that all reasonable attempts should be made to keep it out of the hands of impressionable children.
I do think that we should distinguish magazines like Playboy from some of the more distasteful and misogynistic porn that is freely available on the internet these days.
It's well within their jurisdiction to ban it coming in from foreign countries. They have a role to play in interstate investigations, but the responsibility and authority rests with the states. Anyone who argues that it has to be a federal law is basically saying they don't trust the citizens of their own state to understand that child pornography should be illegal. If that's the case, they need to live somewhere else. IMHO.
I suspect the boy had been abused himself.
Bingo.
Amazing that anyone could write such freaking drivel. Unbelievable. So making women into sluts and men into dogs has an upside. No wonder our country is swirling down the drain.
Why don’t you actually read the study? Its findings have been reported in other studies as well. Surely you agree that the decrease in the rape rate is a good thing. I agree that easier adult access to pornography has a downside. I think that if the studies are accurate, however, that decreasing the numbers of rapes is of paramount importance and overrides any concerns of increased addiction. Surely you’d agree that Playboy ( which is simply a nudie magazine) is different from some of the tasteless and demeaning crap passing as porn these days.
I have no personal experience of porn, other than seeing a Playboy I think once, in the late or mid 60s. Nothing else.
If there are fewer rapes today than - when? - I’d have to see stats, but even if that is so, I am sure it’s because so many women are such EZ sluts today, not because of more porn.
There is nothing good about porn. Not one damn thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.