Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Another anti-child porn crusader jailed for downloading kiddie pics
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
BR |
No the law is drivel.
Why have laws which are then applied only against some people and not against others who are worse offenders.
GROOMING is done more by the STATE than by any individual. The law is only applied to individuals when the greatest encouragement to partake in Under Age illegal sex is made by STATE edicts which give the teens the means and wherefore to act illegally.
If the STATE offered FREE CARS to all 15 year olds to drive around in EVEN THOUGH they cant legally have a license until 17 years old there would be an OUTCRY. So why can the STATE do this when it comes to SEX.
The reason being that UK citizens are too uptight to talk openly about issues like sex because they are repressed by years of media dumbing down.
The STATE can GROOM openly with no action against them. That is why the UK has the highest number of sex offenders in the World and why it has the highest Teen pregnancy rates in Europe.
Why have a law which is only brought into play 10 or 20 years later when it cant be proved ? That is bad law. |
|
Twit |
That is awful dribble BR. Sorry it just is. |
|
BR |
Child Porn is wrong. The people who create child porn should receive a LIFE SENTENCE.
Like drug users - people who view child porn should be offered an escape from it - counselling and help.
Surely by doing that we stop it - and this would work for Drugs as well ( as Veritas says - both are the same and addictive criminal behaviour )
I agree with LO that we must not make excuses for Child Abuse at all - there is no excuse for someone having sex with someone under the age of 16 years old and in addition there is no excuse for someone under 16 having sex.
I believe that between the age of 13 to 16 people SHOULD be held responsible for their actions. Prior to that I believe it is a different ball park.
No one should be having sex before 16 if society has decided together that it should be ILLEGAL. Which the last time I looked was the case.
Therefore, the Police must prosecute the following :
1. Any Doctor or Local Authority which gives out contraception or sexual advice to UNDER 16s because they are breaking the 2003 act on GROOMING. They cant argue the silly defence that "they will do it anyway" because that is a PAEDOPHILE argument and as LO says this is not justified.
2. Any person who gets pregnant or buys contraception or morning after pills and they are under 16 should be prosecuted as well.
3. Any shop or pharmacy or pub which does not get PROOF OF AGE ( over 16 ) to buy any sex related product should be prosecuted.
This is the only way we will stamp out UNDER AGE SEX - which by definition is PAEDOPHILIA ( Note that the old definition of Pre Pubescent which Paedophile means has been overtaken and changed by the UK and USA and Australian media led by Murdoch which now means anynoe under the age of consent which is 16 for most people and 18 for teachers )
So there we have it - the state is GROOMING unless it enforces its own laws. |
|
SJB |
Locked Out wrote:
A. Sex with the underage is OK.
[/quote]
I'm not sure anyone here thinks that, but I for one think that sex with the underage is not necessarily bad. At the moment, the message young people are getting is that perfectly happy and fulfilling sexual activity is "abuse" solely because it happens before their 16th birthday. No wonder there's so often a somewhat warped attitude to sexuality and relationships thereafter.
Blackit's argument about jealous feminists doesn't convince me. The situation seems to have arisen because it's just not been thought through properly with sufficient thoroughness and perspicacity.
My position on child pornography is this. There is no ethical basis for banning possessing or looking at such images, because it neither harms nor offends. Looking at a picture cannot cause physical harm and it's unlikely that it can be shown to lead causally to clinically definable mental disorders. Likewise, A cannot be offended by B in another location looking at images that are not to A's taste. I've posted before about how I dislike the notion of banning things because some people just dont like them.
However, the act of creating child porn images may cause harm to the subject of the image, and for that reason I believe this should not be permitted. Likewise, paying for images should be prohibited because it may perpetuate situations that might be causing harm to the subject of images being created. Of course, creating cartoons or pseudo images harms no one, nor do snaps of children running around naked on holiday at the beach. |
|
Locked Out |
Blackit wrote:
That's indeed a huge contradiction, easily explained by the rise of feminism. Women want a society where they can do whatever they want with their bodies, but at the same time, they don't want to be competing with the flawless bodies of 16 year old girls.
Well yes, that would do it. Not a very convincing argument, but at least it's a start.
We should be very careful. There seems to be a rising tide here toward making excuses for those who believe that;
A. Sex with the underage is OK.
B. Child pornography is only a problem for those who seek to obliterate it.
It's a dangerous tide and this board would be the poorer should the wave ever hit the shore.
Let us try to understand, sure. But blaming feminism with the explicitly made reason that the motive is jealousy is limp {and probably very, very wrong} in the extreme. It should also be borne in mind that if this argument is intended to be taken as valid it might equally be argued that the views expressed by Blackit here are informed by exactly the opposite motives. Something I'm sure {at least I hope} isn't the case. |
|
|
|
