Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   The Lounge (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/)
-   -   How comes every time the news reports a case of child abduction (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/29816-how-comes-every-time-news-reports-case-child-abduction.html)

Chronotub 04-13-2008 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 469079)
This is bad how? You create a job market and strengthen the economy all without hurting someone. The people hurting the children should be punished, but the consumer and the market shouldn't be punished as they didn't actually do anything wrong. It'd be like penalizing someone because they laughed at a car wreck, or for downloading footage of someone being killed.

it is bad because they are supporting it and encouraging those who make it, so yes, it does hurt people

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 469079)
I agree they're not actors and that what is being done to them is very, very bad. To be honest it is probably one of the most disgusting examples of human depravity, and it churns my stomach just thinking about the sick bastards comitting such acts.

yet you feel it's ok to support and encourage such acts?

The Unfan 04-13-2008 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fal (Post 469093)
Hitmen and assassins, should it be legal to give them money to kill someone?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronotub
yet you feel it's ok to support and encourage such acts?

Yes, free market and free speech in the case where the encouragement is verbal.

Barnard17 04-13-2008 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 469118)
Yes.

Yet this is supporting and encouraging murder. At least you're consistent I guess but I must disagree with your simplistic reasoning regarding passive responsibility.

jibber 04-13-2008 04:51 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 469079)
This is bad how? You create a job market and strengthen the economy all without hurting someone. The people hurting the children should be punished, but the consumer and the market shouldn't be punished as they didn't actually do anything wrong. It'd be like penalizing someone because they laughed at a car wreck, or for downloading footage of someone being killed.

I agree they're not actors and that what is being done to them is very, very bad. To be honest it is probably one of the most disgusting examples of human depravity, and it churns my stomach just thinking about the sick bastards comitting such acts. However, I still stand by the idea that nobody should be punished for feeling enjoyment, or for owning something that brings said enjoyment as long as they themselves don't impede the rights and freedoms of others, and I'll be damned if watching a video in the privacy of my own home is damaging to anyone.

What if their reason isn't because its marketable, but rather the marketability is just an aside?

And this seems to be the notion we're not agreeing on.

No, we're not agreeing on that notion, mostly because you seem to be incapable of comprehending cause and effect in this situation. Pedophiles buying the videos put money into the pockets of those doing the crime. I've said all I can say on this issue, because we are both repeating ourselved. The fact remains that possessing child porn in not an isolated incident. It does not start and end with the videotape that was bought or downloaded. It started with a child being raped for the purpose of selling the video footage to pedophiles. It then transfered to the person who buys that videotape, which brings it back to the person who commited the rape by giving them more money, and more resources. There is a DIRECT connection from the person raping the child in the video, to the person buying the video, and BACK to the person who raped the child initially. Your problem is that you are viewing the possession of the video as an isolated incident, which it IN NO WAY IS. you're being obtuse, you're disregarding a huge portion of the process, and you're looking at a harmful and disgusting practice (and yes, i AM talking about posessing child porn) as a something entirely detached from the act which is going on in the video, which is not only incredibly narrow-minded, it's offensive. As of now i'm done with this issue. I'm done speaking to someone who refuses to look at the situation for what it is instead of how it appears by their stilted legal definitions. And i'm done debating with someone who really has no idea what they're talking about, because they've never seen first hand children who are growing up with emotional and physical scars after being sold as a sex slave and raped and abused for years for the benefit of the pedophiles back in north america who are simply "getting enjoyment."

oh, and just so I won't have to do this later, and so it's clear where my arguments are coming from, take a good look at this photo. That's me in the photo in the orphanage in Phnom Penh, Cambodia I spent two months working in. The girl I have my arm around is named Chantrea. She was 13 when this photo was taken, and two years before then she had been resuced from a brothel. Her parents had died of AIDS, and she was kidnapped from the street she was living on and put to work as a sex slave when she was 9 years old. She spent two years being raped for the pleasure of those pedophiles you are so adamantly defending. And yes, I know that videotapes were being made from that brothel because I read the report from the organization that shut down that brothel. Two more of my girls had suffered similar abuse.

That's nice that your world is so neatly defined and packaged. But some of us live in the real world and have actually seen the real effects of those videotapes.

as an afterthought, I would tell you exactly what I think of you and your ideas, but I don't think it's neccesary. I think this photo and my reasons for thinking the way I do do far more to describe your morals and values than words ever could.

Chronotub 04-13-2008 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 469118)
Yes.


Yes, free market and free speech in the case where the encouragement is verbal.

so if I rape a kid I'm evil, but if I pay someone to rape a kid and film it for me to wack off to later then I'm totaly inocent?

The Unfan 04-13-2008 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber (Post 469141)
you're being obtuse, you're disregarding a huge portion of the process, and you're looking at a harmful and disgusting practice (and yes, i AM talking about posessing child porn) as a something entirely detached from the act which is going on in the video, which is not only incredibly narrow-minded, it's offensive.

I actually lolled at this sentence, enough to actually snort even.

Quote:

as an afterthought, I would tell you exactly what I think of you and your ideas, but I don't think it's neccesary. I think this photo and my reasons for thinking the way I do do far more to describe your morals and values than words ever could.
I don't even understand how you can assume what my morals are based on anything posted in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronotub (Post 469152)
so if I rape a kid I'm evil, but if I pay someone to rape a kid and film it for me to wack off to later then I'm totaly inocent?

Paying someone for a service isn't intrusive of anyone's freedoms therefore you paying someone to rape someone else isn't bad. Wacking it isn't a bad thing either. However, filming someone and making a profit off them without their consent is potentially fiscally damaging. You'd need the child to consent to the filming of the rape to make this work out.

Chronotub 04-13-2008 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 469190)
Paying someone for a service isn't intrusive of anyone's freedoms

depends what that service is, in the case of rape, yes it is
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 469190)
However, filming someone and making a profit off them without their consent is potentially fiscally damaging. You'd need the child to consent to the filming of the rape to make this work out.

so wouldn't that make all child porn wrong? children can't legaly consent

The Unfan 04-13-2008 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronotub (Post 469260)
so wouldn't that make all child porn wrong? children can't legaly consent

Owning a copy of it, or watching it, or selling it =/= business with the child in question.

Chronotub 04-13-2008 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 469273)
Owning a copy of it, or watching it, or selling it =/= business with the child in question.

no but the trade in child porn does hurt children, which is why it is illegal

the people who have child porn are not as guilty as those who actuly made it, but they still share some responcibility

cardboard adolescent 04-13-2008 07:44 PM

child molestation gives kids self esteem boosts!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:59 AM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.