Posted: Dec 13, 2016 9:40 pm
by Thomas Eshuis
The_Metatron wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

Don't you think it's kinda ridiculous to decide a person needs to die based exclusively on their sexual fantasies, however disgusting they might be? What kind of thought police bullshit is this?

Clearly, I don't think it's "kinda ridiculous", do I?

People tend to do those things that they think are normal behavior, don't they?

Bein a paedophile =/= thinking paedophelia is normal.
Nor acceptable for that matter.

The_Metatron wrote: I've lived long enough and seen enough of human behavior to know that some one who is sexually gratified by naked nine year old girls with half their skin burned off is going to have even fewer problems with much less horrific situations than that one.

That's an incredibly vague non-sequitur.

The_Metatron wrote: Situations that are still beyond any standard of acceptable behavior.

Just because someone might be sexually predisposed to those kinds of scenario doesn't mean they'll actually act on it.

The_Metatron wrote:You feel free to explain how that fantasy, as I've described it above, is in any way a harbinger of model citizenry.

Just like KIR you're conflating attraction, ie thoughts/emotions, with actions.

The_Metatron wrote:Are you laboring under the impression that such thought policing, as you put it, doesn't already exist?

I can't speak to your area, but over here, no-one's arrested or put into a mental treatment facility, just for being a paedophile.
Nor for any other thoughts that don't necessarily result in actions.

The_Metatron wrote: Let's talk about that, in context of what's going on with Eric.
Did Eric commission the images for which he was convicted? Probably pretty safe to assume not. Surely someone did, though. Someone compelled those minors to be photographed, didn't they? Once done, once that image is captured, is that minor injured in any way by further distribution of that image? The injury was when they were compelled to be photographed, wasn't it?

The argument will then be that mere possession of child pornography fuels the situation. It motivates those who do it to do more of it. That's certainly true. What that boils down to is punishing others for motivating some child pornographer to do something they have not yet done.

There's a big difference between having attractions/thoughts and buying into a product and thereby stimulating actions based on said thoughts.

The_Metatron wrote:
Oh, but wait. Didn't you just say that was thought police? Just because those child pornographers have these fantasies, it doesn't mean they are going to act on them? Is that what you are saying?

But they are acting on them. They are producing child pornopgraphy ffs.

The_Metatron wrote:We both know better, don't we?

I should hope so, but that's not apparent from your post.

The_Metatron wrote:
This topic wouldn't even fucking exist except for the plain truth that people tend to act on their fantasies.

And we persecute people for their actions not their thoughts.