HomeI don't mind it chopped very fine.y2johnny wrote:i hate cabbage!
At least then I can't see what I'm eating.
What the hell is going on in the world?
+8
Bwfc1958
Hipster_Nebula
wanderlust
boltonbonce
Reebok Trotter
Natasha Whittam
xmiles
Sluffy
12 posters
Go to page : 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Message [Page 3 of 5]
41 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 15:30
boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
At least then I can't see what I'm eating.
42 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 15:31
Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Posts : 17554
Join date : 2012-11-30
Age : 52
Location : Burnage, Manchester
Paedos to cabbage in two posts - only on Bolton Nuts 
43 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 15:33
boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Speaking of cabbage,where's 84?
What did he do with his 'Freedman out' banner?
What did he do with his 'Freedman out' banner?
44 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 15:45
Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Posts : 17554
Join date : 2012-11-30
Age : 52
Location : Burnage, Manchester
boltonbonce wrote:Speaking of cabbage,where's 84?
45 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 16:08
Sluffy
Admin
The Grisham view is fatally flawed in two respects in my opinion.
The first is that it is not thought through properly.
What I mean is that if a person watches porn - lets say for instance one person likes women with big breasts - and a second likes gay porn - then it follows that that type of sex is their 'craving' or desire and that it is entirely conceivable that at some point in their lives that they to some extent or other can achieve their wish. That could be by meeting someone, or by paying for it.
A person with a craving or desire for under age sex can never legally achieve their wish - it is either a lifetime unachievable craving or even worse one that they have illegally attained. Neither of which are desireable outcomes.
The second fatal flaw - and more damning - is that in order to watch child porn, children have to have been abused first and filmed.
To create a demand for child porn therefore condemns children somewhere or other to be abused and filmed, to provide the supply for this 'craving'.
It therefore matters not that people watch it and don't offend - as the children have to have been abused first in order that people can watch the child porn at all.
And surely everybody can see that is wrong?
The first is that it is not thought through properly.
What I mean is that if a person watches porn - lets say for instance one person likes women with big breasts - and a second likes gay porn - then it follows that that type of sex is their 'craving' or desire and that it is entirely conceivable that at some point in their lives that they to some extent or other can achieve their wish. That could be by meeting someone, or by paying for it.
A person with a craving or desire for under age sex can never legally achieve their wish - it is either a lifetime unachievable craving or even worse one that they have illegally attained. Neither of which are desireable outcomes.
The second fatal flaw - and more damning - is that in order to watch child porn, children have to have been abused first and filmed.
To create a demand for child porn therefore condemns children somewhere or other to be abused and filmed, to provide the supply for this 'craving'.
It therefore matters not that people watch it and don't offend - as the children have to have been abused first in order that people can watch the child porn at all.
And surely everybody can see that is wrong?
46 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 16:30
wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Keep up Sluffy!Sluffy wrote:The Grisham view is fatally flawed in two respects in my opinion.
The first is that it is not thought through properly.
What I mean is that if a person watches porn - lets say for instance one person likes women with big breasts - and a second likes gay porn - then it follows that that type of sex is their 'craving' or desire and that it is entirely conceivable that at some point in their lives that they to some extent or other can achieve their wish. That could be by meeting someone, or by paying for it.
A person with a craving or desire for under age sex can never legally achieve their wish - it is either a lifetime unachievable craving or even worse one that they have illegally attained. Neither of which are desireable outcomes.
The second fatal flaw - and more damning - is that in order to watch child porn, children have to have been abused first and filmed.
To create a demand for child porn therefore condemns children somewhere or other to be abused and filmed, to provide the supply for this 'craving'.
It therefore matters not that people watch it and don't offend - as the children have to have been abused first in order that people can watch the child porn at all.
And surely everybody can see that is wrong?
Nobody is saying that watching child porn isn't wrong - just saying it's different from actually raping a child - and therefore sentencing should be different for the two offences.
Once a film has been made and put on t'internet for example people will watch it who had nothing to do with the original crime. Whilst the original crime was necessary for the film to exist it doesn't follow that someone new to the film is committing the same crime as the original. It's voyeurism.
47 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 16:58
Sluffy
Admin
I disagree.
I think it is well established that if a group of people go out to commit an offence and one of them does so, that they are ALL considered equally guilty even if the rest of them don't actually participate directly. Say four people plan and go out to rape someone but only one person physically does it.
They are all guilty by association.
Consider then the same group of people go out to commit the same offence BUT they do it at different times to each other - say they plan and rape the same person but say only two are there at the rape itself and only one physically does it but the other two want to see it on film.
They are all still guilty by association - they do not need to be present to be considered a rapist.
Then consider the rape is done with the intent of people wanting to view it - does it not also follow that those who view say the next day (by video say) are equally as guilty? Indeed the rape may not have been done at all if no one wanted to view it in the first place.
So if that logic is true then it matters not when the rape is viewed, as the viewer will always be as equally liable as the actual rapist by association and thus the same punishment would be merrited.
QED.
I think it is well established that if a group of people go out to commit an offence and one of them does so, that they are ALL considered equally guilty even if the rest of them don't actually participate directly. Say four people plan and go out to rape someone but only one person physically does it.
They are all guilty by association.
Consider then the same group of people go out to commit the same offence BUT they do it at different times to each other - say they plan and rape the same person but say only two are there at the rape itself and only one physically does it but the other two want to see it on film.
They are all still guilty by association - they do not need to be present to be considered a rapist.
Then consider the rape is done with the intent of people wanting to view it - does it not also follow that those who view say the next day (by video say) are equally as guilty? Indeed the rape may not have been done at all if no one wanted to view it in the first place.
So if that logic is true then it matters not when the rape is viewed, as the viewer will always be as equally liable as the actual rapist by association and thus the same punishment would be merrited.
QED.
48 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 17:18
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
Most of the scumbags who carry out these despicable acts on children are motivated by both lust and greed. Invariably the people who are interested in this kind of perversion are obliged to join the offending website and supply their credit card details to gain access and membership. This was how the US Postal service first cracked down on this kind of behaviour. In the US they launched Operation Avalanche and traced every single subscriber via their credit card details. A large number of the 'clients' were from the UK and the US authorities forwarded all the details to the UK where subsequently Operation Ore was commenced.
Doctors, Policemen, Solicitors, Teachers and Judges were all charged and put before the courts but only a small percentage were actually sent to prison. The numbers of offenders were so substantial that the CPS authorised that in some cases the offenders may be deemed suitable for a police caution..
As the law stands, voyeurism carries a much lesser custodial sentence than sexual assault and quite rightly so. I don't condone downloading indecent images of children but the point that John Grisham was making still stands as far as I am concerned.
Doctors, Policemen, Solicitors, Teachers and Judges were all charged and put before the courts but only a small percentage were actually sent to prison. The numbers of offenders were so substantial that the CPS authorised that in some cases the offenders may be deemed suitable for a police caution..
As the law stands, voyeurism carries a much lesser custodial sentence than sexual assault and quite rightly so. I don't condone downloading indecent images of children but the point that John Grisham was making still stands as far as I am concerned.
49 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 17:35
boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
By watching it,you condone it.
Voyeurism is not a victimless crime,it fuels the demand for more of the same,thus condemning more and more children to abuse.
Anyone downloading it should receive a custodial sentence.
I very much agree with Sluffy on this one.
Voyeurism is not a victimless crime,it fuels the demand for more of the same,thus condemning more and more children to abuse.
Anyone downloading it should receive a custodial sentence.
I very much agree with Sluffy on this one.
50 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 17:37
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
boltonbonce wrote:By watching it,you condone it.
Voyeurism is not a victimless crime,it fuels the demand for more of the same,thus condemning more and more children to abuse.
Anyone downloading it should receive a custodial sentence.
I very much agree with Sluffy on this one.
And your opinion is just as valid as everyone else. I wouldn't have it any other way.
51 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 17:46
boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Yes. Even I couldn't find a Brucie angle on this one.Reebok Trotter wrote:boltonbonce wrote:By watching it,you condone it.
Voyeurism is not a victimless crime,it fuels the demand for more of the same,thus condemning more and more children to abuse.
Anyone downloading it should receive a custodial sentence.
I very much agree with Sluffy on this one.
And your opinion is just as valid as everyone else. I wouldn't have it any other way.
It's beyond humour.
When Ken Bigley was beheaded,the entire building I was working in suddenly filed into another room because someone had got hold of a video of the execution.
They returned some minutes later,happily chatting about what they had just seen,and seemingly delighted at having had the opportunity to witness it.
I was staggered. Had I watched it I'd have felt diminished as a human being. The same would be true with child porn.
52 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 18:08
Guest
Guest
I think we're going round in circles a bit here......
Nobody is suggesting that watching kiddy porn is anything other than reprehensible and anybody who does it should be punished.
However, the point that several people have tried to make is that, surely, being the one who actually does the physical raping should carry a stiffer penalty.
We all agree that it's all bad, but some of it is worse, surely....?
Nobody is suggesting that watching kiddy porn is anything other than reprehensible and anybody who does it should be punished.
However, the point that several people have tried to make is that, surely, being the one who actually does the physical raping should carry a stiffer penalty.
We all agree that it's all bad, but some of it is worse, surely....?
53 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 18:14
Guest
Guest
I remember watching the saddam hanging when it happened. Even though it was him it was still very haunting to actually see it and know it's not a movie. As for the underage porn, it's disgusting. Anyone caught even watching it should be castrated and then left to rot. Because at the end of the day they are watching someone's young son or daughter being abused and childhood innocence and probably the rest of their life ruined.
54 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 18:16
boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Yes. There should be a tier system.
I think that would be fair.
We're probably dancing on the head of a pin here.
I think that would be fair.
We're probably dancing on the head of a pin here.
55 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 18:17
Guest
Guest
Bredders, as far as I'm concerned both should carry a severe penalty. If they aren't willing to bring back public flogging then like I said above, castration and rotting in a cell never to see daylight again.
56 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 18:28
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
Yes that was pretty horrific. They were spitting at him and abusing him on the gallows. By all means hang the bastard but do it with a bit of dignity. Bert Pierrepoint would be turning over in his grave at the way that hanging was carried out.y2johnny wrote:I remember watching the saddam hanging when it happened. Even though it was him it was still very haunting to actually see it and know it's not a movie.
57 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 18:31
Sluffy
Admin
Breadman wrote:I think we're going round in circles a bit here......
Nobody is suggesting that watching kiddy porn is anything other than reprehensible and anybody who does it should be punished.
However, the point that several people have tried to make is that, surely, being the one who actually does the physical raping should carry a stiffer penalty.
We all agree that it's all bad, but some of it is worse, surely....?
Only to some extent.
See the common law doctrine of Common Purpose -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose
58 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 18:47
Guest
Guest
I see what you're getting at, Sluff, but legal doctrines like the one cited there refer to the commission of one specific crime.
Both cart drivers were found equally culpable because they were both there racing and their combined actions on the day resulted in the death.
What we're discussing here is the notion that there are two separate crimes commited -
(A) Someone coerces a child into having sex with them, films it and uploads it to the internet.
and
(B) Some scruffy weirdo sat in a bedsit searches for images of that kind of thing on the "Deep Web" and downloads them.
The two acts aren't directly linked in the eyes of the law, but both are illegal and carry penalties.
And if anything, what that doctrine says is that the guy committing Crime A is responsible for the actions of the scruffy perv in the bedsit, so he is actually more liable.
Which was kind of the point I was trying to make earlier.
This is getting very heavy......can we not go back to discussing how shit cabbages are instead?
Both cart drivers were found equally culpable because they were both there racing and their combined actions on the day resulted in the death.
What we're discussing here is the notion that there are two separate crimes commited -
(A) Someone coerces a child into having sex with them, films it and uploads it to the internet.
and
(B) Some scruffy weirdo sat in a bedsit searches for images of that kind of thing on the "Deep Web" and downloads them.
The two acts aren't directly linked in the eyes of the law, but both are illegal and carry penalties.
And if anything, what that doctrine says is that the guy committing Crime A is responsible for the actions of the scruffy perv in the bedsit, so he is actually more liable.
Which was kind of the point I was trying to make earlier.
This is getting very heavy......can we not go back to discussing how shit cabbages are instead?
59 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 19:04
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
Breadman wrote:
This is getting very heavy......can we not go back to discussing how shit cabbages are instead?
Good idea. I'm particularly partial to spring cabbage.
60 Re: What the hell is going on in the world? Thu Oct 16 2014, 19:12
boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
We could always talk about sharks. Fascinating creatures.
Message [Page 3 of 5]
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|
|