191–200 of 332 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should be satisfied if it comes at no harm to others and the alternative is harming others. Isn't that kind of a no-brainer?
The question is why ? "It's ok to picture murdering your entire family over dinner with a fork, as long as you don't really do it". Not, it's not ok. Why would you want to accept and encourage behavior that is not sane?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting that Texas, arguably one of the most rigidly Christian states in the country with evidence of moral legislation, is actually reasonable in this regard. Rich makes a lot of assertions about fundamental Christians, but provides little evidence to back them up.
It has more to do with old farming lifestyles and young marriages. Colorado and I believe Kansas have the same clauses.
I'd also call bullshit on this anecdote and most of the ones in this thread: the most common age of consent in the US is 16, not 18 and specifically, in Texas, it's 17, meaning that there are two different ways that this particular story doesn't add up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Who is harmed by "virtual child porn"?
Possibly the viewers, IF (research needed) giving them the ability to watch detailed scenarios of abuse -- possibly with willing "children" -- raises the possibility that they'll abuse a real child and ruin both the child's life and their own.
That's an important "if"; I don't know the answer, but I will at least say it's a bit sad we don't have more people calling for research on "what things actually prevent child molestation from happening" -- we just have people calling for harsher sentences, or broader laws, or more sex offender registries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is why ? "It's ok to picture murdering your entire family over dinner with a fork, as long as you don't really do it". Not, it's not ok. Why would you want to accept and encourage behavior that is not sane?
"Why would you want to accept and encourage behavior that is not sane?" Because the evidence continues to stack up in staggering amounts that sexual preference is innate and out of our control. That attempting to suppress it without any outlet is a recipe for a miserable life, possibly leading to dangerous and violent outbursts for perceived injustice and oppression. Whether you like it or not, people are into kinky…
We want pedophiles to have miserable lives, if that's the cost of preventing children from being molested. It sucks, but that's the shitty hand they've drawn in life (particularly sad because they probably were molested themselves as children...).
Whether porn makes their lives less or more miserable, I'm not sure, but the main question is how it affects the likelihood that they'll personally molest a child. This is not a question that's been answered yet, AFAIK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Why would you want to accept and encourage behavior that is not sane?" Because the evidence continues to stack up in staggering amounts that sexual preference is innate and out of our control. That attempting to suppress it without any outlet is a recipe for a miserable life, possibly leading to dangerous and violent outbursts for perceived injustice and oppression. Whether you like it or not, people are into kinky…
Do you have research to point to, wrt this? Because the evidence continues to stack up in staggering amounts that sexual preference is innate and out of our control. That attempting to suppress it without any outlet is a recipe for a miserable life, possibly leading to dangerous and violent outbursts for perceived injustice and oppression. There's a big jump from "sexual preference is innate" -- e.g., we can't use th…
May I just be a dick and point out that you transparently assumed the hypothetical child molester is male here? And also, that I said "[suppression of] desire will lead to a miserable life" but that it "[may] possibly lead to violence".
I don't think the former point is in question, and the latter was clearly marked as speculative.
That said, it's clear from e.g. the 'elastic band around penis' study that homophobia and homosexual desire are correlated. Homophobia seems to be a response to a perceived threat seen to be made by the openly homosexual against the closeted person, either directly (by flirting with them), or indirectly (threatening the traditional institutions of society).
I don't think it's a stretch to say that this pattern of suppressed desire leading to extreme abuse—particularly when the temptation is perceived to be 'flaunted'—is predictable, and that expecting it to be limited to just homophobia is naive.
However, I indeed don't have a study handy, and I do applaud you for asking for the citation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a symptom. The cause is religions - people who think they've got to impose their interpretation of morality (to which they themselves do not conform) on wide public. It is made clearly in the article that bad laws are lobbied by religious fundamentalists. Since religions have no value, I say clean it up.
> It is a symptom. The cause is religions - people who think they've got to impose their interpretation of morality (to which they themselves do not conform) on wide public. Hold on here. It's mainly the right winger Christians who are co-opting laws into their own religion based law. And the statement is also just factually false: not every religion tries to force their rules on the country. If you were to call me a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you could be. Universal crimes that are only prosecuted when the police want to get you are a large part of the problem. Everyone is guilty of something - see Three Felonies a Day.
It's good to have a jaywalking law on the books if someone runs into traffic and causes and accident.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Like the author points out. In the case of child pornography, simply having it is illegal regardless of reason, which makes people who come across such content, destroying their evidence. This would only put more people in jail, the killer (maybe), and the people watching it (maybe). I'd rather it just be the killer. And the molester in the case of the article.
The author's case in claiming that is hilariously weak. He presents a ludicrously tromped-up stranger-rape scenario where the rapist gets off scott-free because of child porn laws. But wait, he says this isn't some "far-fetched science fiction scenario". He's about to tell us about a case where something very like this happened or almost happened! This is exactly what will happen as our mobile phones take the next st…
So that video mentions the 15 year old girl who sent the photos, facing federal prosecution as an adult for child pornography charges, and then mentions that the people who've received the photos possibly facing charges as well. Sounds like the author of the article was spot on.
I'd like your opinion on the link I just sent please. The authors point was about the laws being outdated and people being more afraid of dealing with the issue than facing it appropriately for victims. He wrote a good article in relation to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am neither Catholic nor pro-life, but if you see abortion as murder (as many do) it makes sense to be morally outraged by anyone's murder, not just their own. I don't even know you, but I am against the idea of anyone murdering you. See how that works?
Okay, but if you, specifically outlaw murdering me, this will surely draw attention at my person and might harm me. You might be outraged, but you should only be confined to measures that 1) are proven to work, and 2) can be enforced consistently. It looks like a law against abortion does not usually work: abortion is illegal in africa but they do much more abortions per one person than in europe where it is generall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has more to do with old farming lifestyles and young marriages. Colorado and I believe Kansas have the same clauses.
That's false. Statutory rape does not apply to married couples, and minors can get married with parental consent and / or a court order. I'd also call bullshit on this anecdote and most of the ones in this thread: the most common age of consent in the US is 16, not 18 and specifically, in Texas, it's 17, meaning that there are two different ways that this particular story doesn't add up.
Also, the GP to this thread never stated that the guy would be a convicted statutory rapist for sleeping with his wife, but that he would have been a statutory rapist who's victim is the person who is now his wife.
There's plenty of ways this could have worked to the guy's disadvantage. There's really only one way it can be false.