CHILD PORNOGRAPHY RING ARRESTED

Associated Press .. breaking on the wire | August 9, 2002 | Connie Cass (AP)

[VA Advogado]

They are as bad off mentally as you. - But hey, call in ALL your authoritarian socialist buddies. They're always good for a laugh.

Ok. Deal. And you call in your pro-porn pals and we'll see if you have the b*lls to take the moral high ground.

[tpaine]

- The golden rule is reasoned, self evident truth. - The basis for all law and morals. --- You don't want to be hurt? - Don't hurt others.

The golden rule is not at all self-evident. If it were truly self-evident, everybody would follow it.

False reasoning. -- Reasonable, sane people do follow it. - Criminals do not.

But in fact there are alternatives that have been proven to work as well, or maybe even better for those who can pull it off.

You've made these same examples before. Criminal conduct is not an 'alternative' lifestyle.

For example, I can also avoid getting hurt by becoming King, and killing or enslaving all who might harm me. If I'm a successful king, I can even pay people to do my dirty work for me. And even if one is not capable enough to be king, one can get very nearly the same effect (not being hurt) by being one of his loyal henchpeople.

So? You're a criminal tyrant that dies in bed. Big deal.
-- Your example is just an absurd denial that the golden rule is a reasoned basis for morality, and needs no religion to justify its existence.

[tpaine]

No one here at FR is 'pro-porn'.
- This is just more of your crazed bull. You are very sick.

[tpaine]

You are truly losing it.
I don't advocate 'porno' as you well know.
-- Simply put, you're a crazy liar.

[Frapster]

Now we come to the real crux of the issue: for whatever reason, we are loathe to "force" our point of view on the other side -- even for something so clearly wrong. And so, in order to get some resolution, we compromise. (The other side knows this, plays to it, and indeed counts on it.)

I think you're wasting your time. There are those who assert absolutes and ignore the ability of humanity to exert free-will and instead confuse it with freedom of speech. There are those who see the assertion of moral laws as a violation of their free speech and fail to recognize that where there's smoke there's fire. Essentially there are those who's ideas, although well meaning, are thoroughly in denial of human nature and fail to recognize that although there is a moral code at work in our lives there is that capacity within man to ignore it at the expense of others and for their own personal gratification.

Frankly - political, social or moral ideals are worthless if the full range of what humanity is capable of (both good and evid) is not recognized and addressed. Otherwise we'll just continue to learn from the same mistakes so many others have made in the past. I guess history just really is destined to repeat itself.

I'll tell you what's rediculous - to assert a moral law is compared to being a fascist because it limits the "obviously" perverse from their ?fundamental right? to free-speech. Does anyone not see the contradiction in all of that or is it just a juxtaposition?

[r9etb]

Does anyone not see the contradiction in all of that or is it just a juxtaposition?

Probably closer to the latter -- though I prefer to think of it more along the lines of substitution due to pridefulness and denial. Look at the verbal gymnastics we've seen in this thread -- some of it quite remarkable. It pretty much all traces back to one an assumption that God either doesn't exist, or doesn't matter.

[r9etb]

You've made these same examples before. Criminal conduct is not an 'alternative' lifestyle.

I was taking issue with your use of the term "self-evident" as it applies to the Golden Rule. Yet it is clearly not self-evident when approached from your rationalist point of view. "Self-evident" implies that it needs no proof; the ready availability of excellent counter-examples demonstrates the need for proof. Hence, it is not and cannot be self-evident to the rationalist.

A truly rational person would note that the king has a better chance of not being harmed than does the man who counts on his fellow man to obey the golden rule. You yourself don't do that -- IIRC you're a big gun rights supporter. Why? Because you don't trust your fellow man to invariably follow the golden rule, and are instead relying on a show of force to avoid being harmed.

If you were rational, you'd conclude from this that the king is right: force is the only way. You'd also have to conclude that the golden rule was for chumps, as it requires a tremendous degree of trust that is not necessarily warranted. Instead, you've given the golden rule a tremendous weight that cannot be justified on rational grounds.

So we're back to our original and long-standing argument, which you're still avoiding.

[headsonpikes]

"That's where I keep your dossier..."

I can suggest an alternative storage site that will keep these materials within your easy reach. ;^}

[tpaine]

Sorry, but you're just making nonsense statements about what you seem to imagine I should be arguing.
Weird technique.

[tpaine]

Maybe we will be able to pursue this subject again, when you're more coherent, intelligible, or clear?

[Dimensio]

The truth is many children have the “mental capacity” to consent and only arbitrary age laws forbids it.

Okay, I'll rephrase. I think that adult-child sexual relations would be acceptable if it could be demonstrated that such would not cause pyschological harm to the child and that the child were able to fully understand the consequences of such relations and I do not believe that such a situation will ever exist.

hat means you would allow children to engage in sexual behavior that would further demoralize our society into your Liberaltarian utopia.

Do not put words into my mouth. It is incredibly arrogant and pretentious.

[Dimensio]

This is no different from saying that genocide would be OK so long as it's popular.

Genocide would be "ok"? Depends on what you mean by "ok". If a significant majority goes along with it, then it's certainly "okay" by them, thought it does not necessarily make it practical (a situation where killing people to take their land sets a prescedent for acquisition that could later be used against the ones employing it at the moment) or ultimately beneficial for society (whether or not society should seek benefit is another matter).

[EdReform]

Belated bump

FYI -- Pedophilia Documentation

[stalin]

I don't think that the UE swine are any better than the American swine involved in this.

Europe doesn't take this sort of crime very seriously though.

Please go to askel5's link on post 46

Additionally , the ages of concent are much lower in Europe and not enforced. Also , very few child pornographers are arested and those that are generally are let off. Also .... They have a thriving sex slavery business that isn't being prosecuted are even barely restricted from doing business. Etc etc etc

They just don't take sex crimes in general very seriously.

I have a freind in Paris that is a lawyer. He defended a client that was obviously guilty of having sex with children (under 15 in France ) and child pornography. My freind got him off completely and not on a technicality. The judge throw it out because there was no evidence the the crime took place in France and that the sex and pornography was not concentual. You can pretty much get away with having sex and taking pictures of any girl that has a period in France and most of Europe.

[stalin]

I don't think that the UE swine are any better than the American swine involved in this.

Europe doesn't take this sort of crime very seriously though.

Please go to askel5's link on post 46

Additionally , the ages of concent are much lower in Europe and not enforced. Also , very few child pornographers are arested and those that are generally are let off. Also .... They have a thriving sex slavery business that isn't being prosecuted are even barely restricted from doing business. Etc etc etc

They just don't take sex crimes in general very seriously.

I have a freind in Paris that is a lawyer. He defended a client that was obviously guilty of having sex with children (under 15 in France ) and child pornography. My freind got him off completely and not on a technicality. The judge throw it out because there was no evidence the the crime took place in France and that the sex and pornography was not concentual. You can pretty much get away with having sex and taking pictures of any girl that has a period in France and most of Europe.

[Great Dane]

I am from Denmark, and after hearing Bill O'Reiley say that even incest was legal in Denmark, I went on a rant while on vacation there, and was told the police are running pornographers in as fast as they can......... and O'Reiley flat out lied abot incest.

By the way, kiddy porn is thriving here as well, if our law makers were serious about it, there would be a lot less of it, don't you think.

We come back to the same old thing, "Sweep your own stoop, before you tackle someone elses."

[stalin]

why not tackle both at the same time ?

[Great Dane]

why not tackle both at the same time ?

What a good idea.