Ex Stephen Harper advisor makes disturbing comments about Child Pornog

[shortlived]

Are you suggesting those who make child porn are motivated to do so by a desire to indocrinate?

Partially, some seek to share, this is the pedoring problem. It isn't just about self gratification but sharing the experience with others so it exists. That is part of the voyeuristic issue. People people don't just want the act but be glorified by the act.

It may not be overt but the effect is much the same. It is to engineer a subculture where they are advantaged by interaction relating to the pedophilic acts.

Some people in both straight and alternate sexualities get off on being watched or people watching them do sexual acts.

It is called exhibitionism.

Some of these groups may be more motivated by satanistic ritualization and tantric inculturalizaiton.

Edited March 3, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Partially, some seek to share, this is the pedoring problem. It isn't just about self gratification but sharing the experience with others so it exists. That is part of the voyeuristic issue. People people don't just want the act but be glorified by the act.

Okay, yes; fair enough. However, I can't see how that would be the prime motivator behind carrying out the very dangerous and reprehensible act of sexually abusing a child. If the "market", or let's say "audience", ceased to exist, the kind of person we're talking about might lose a certain extra thrill, but wouldn't be less desiring of the kind of sex acts they were already wanting and willing to carry out.

[jacee]

Okay, yes; fair enough. However, I can't see how that would be the prime motivator behind carrying out the very dangerous and reprehensible act of sexually abusing a child. If the "market", or let's say "audience", ceased to exist, the kind of person we're talking about might lose a certain extra thrill, but wouldn't be less desiring of the kind of sex acts they were already wanting and willing to carry out.

And you know that how?

And you continue to defend child porn why?

Hiding behind internet anonymity is one thing, but would you try to do so on stage, in your own name?

Tom Flanagan just committed career suicide that way.

.

Edited March 4, 2013 by jacee

[PIK]

And you know that how?

And you continue to defend child porn why?

Hiding behind internet anonymity is one thing, but would you try to do so on stage, in your own name?

Tom Flanagan just committed career suicide that way.

.

Well he is a professor and I find it odd the left are all over him. If a lib said it , it would just go down as a conversation about a dark subject. Again this to has be over blown.

[Argus]

Yes and violent TV shows don't instill violence in people either.

Culture is culture, people are effected by culture. For you to deny that is just out of touch. People exposed to violence are desensitized to its actual effects. Potrayals of sexual violence as acceptable, instills the notion that sexual violence is acceptable.

Are you refuting that?

I am saying that the religious right and the anti-sex feminists have spent a lot of money over the past fifty years in long, detailed studies trying to prove that pornography and violent pornography causes sexual violence and they have never been able to do so. Any desensitization is very temporary.

[Argus]

And you know that how?

Elementary logic. You should try using it sometime.

And you continue to defend child porn why?

That you evdiently aren't smart enough to tell the difference between defending child porn and a discussion of its origins, causes and potential damage should embarrass you.

[Bryan]

And you know that how?

And you continue to defend child porn why?

Hiding behind internet anonymity is one thing, but would you try to do so on stage, in your own name?

Tom Flanagan just committed career suicide that way.

.

Nobody here is defending child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such an inflammatory accusation.

[scribblet]

Well he is a professor and I find it odd the left are all over him. If a lib said it , it would just go down as a conversation about a dark subject. Again this to has be over blown.

Agree, and it was a trap...

Flanagan in his own words

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/04/tom-flanagan-in-his-own-words-ex-harper-strategist-explains-controversial-child-pornography-comments/

[scribblet]

Nobody here is defending child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such an inflammatory accusation.

Right on..

[Pliny]

Tom Flanagan is a good example of why Intellectualism is often seen as being abandoned by the right.

[Wayward Son]

Well he is a professor and I find it odd the left are all over him. If a lib said it , it would just go down as a conversation about a dark subject. Again this to has be over blown.

I agree. One of the principles that Ray Hyman outlined for criticism in a debate is the principle of charity. It is a very hard principle to live up to when it comes to one's political opponents. Flanagan made some comments in response to an off-topic question that were brief and certainly not the entirety of his thoughts on the matter, and political opponents have assumed the worst intentions, instead of first granting him the right to fully explain his comments and then judging his position with the same openness they would give someone they didn't already hate.

The speed of the reaction from the CBC, University of Calgary, and political parties shows that their actions were taken more out of emotion and fear of backlash than weighing the evidence is a reasoned manner before making a decision.

[waldo]

Well he is a professor and I find it odd the left are all over him. If a lib said it , it would just go down as a conversation about a dark subject. Again this to has be over blown.

you twist everything into a "left/lib" angle... if you've actually been following this event, you know full well that Conservatives (federal and Alberta provincial) have been most prominent in criticizing Flanagan and distancing themselves from him.

[waldo]

The speed of the reaction from the CBC, University of Calgary, and political parties shows that their actions were taken more out of emotion and fear of backlash than weighing the evidence is a reasoned manner before making a decision.

no - the initial response, and its reactive speed, was a direct reflection on the actual words used... words that specifically spoke to, 'personal liberty versus jail time, for actions that, "do not harm another person".'. Once the official distancing happened, it was moot as to the follow-up timing where initially an acknowledgement to "badly chosen words" was offered, or subsequently, where a formal 'apology' was delivered. By this time... he was already done like dinner!

[scribblet]

I agree. One of the principles that Ray Hyman outlined for criticism in a debate is the principle of charity. It is a very hard principle to live up to when it comes to one's political opponents. Flanagan made some comments in response to an off-topic question that were brief and certainly not the entirety of his thoughts on the matter, and political opponents have assumed the worst intentions, instead of first granting him the right to fully explain his comments and then judging his position with the same openness they would give someone they didn't already hate.

The speed of the reaction from the CBC, University of Calgary, and political parties shows that their actions were taken more out of emotion and fear of backlash than weighing the evidence is a reasoned manner before making a decision.

Excellent post.

[nk86]

I am a student in poli sci. at McGill and we recently read in one of our courses an article written by Flanagan concerning Aboriginal rights. I really thought it was pretty shocking and controversial but surprisingly well articulated. Personally, I think these comments about child pornography were way out of line. As for the lighting quick reaction by the media, I find it a bit ironic. And I agree with Waldo, to my knowledge (I was looking into the chief of staffs of the various leaders just days before the comments were made) Flanagan had indeed been cast aside by Harper long before this came out but for liberal media this sort of got served up on a platter for them.

[Wayward Son]

no - the initial response, and its reactive speed, was a direct reflection on the actual words used... words that specifically spoke to, 'personal liberty versus jail time, for actions that, "do not harm another person".'. Once the official distancing happened, it was moot as to the follow-up timing where initially an acknowledgement to "badly chosen words" was offered, or subsequently, where a formal 'apology' was delivered. By this time... he was already done like dinner!

For me this has nothing to do with the actual words that were said. The responsible thing for our national broadcaster to do was to challenge Flanagan on his statements allowing him the opportunity to express what his actual views are, and why he holds those views. Debate the merits of those views, and possibly at that time assess their relationship with him going forward. The irresponsible thing for our national broadcaster to do was to fire someone based on a couple comments given in response to an off-topic question in what appears to be in a forum that was hostile towards him. I don't agree with most of Flanagan's political views (that I know of). I don't agree with his comments as they were given at that time. At the same time I applaud Flanagan for engaging in discussion and debates with public audiences that may be hostile towards him. I applaud him for being willing to say things that are unpopular. I don't think we gain anything from the CBC deciding that certain topics, debates and views are out of bounds, especially when said at a university. Let's say that Flanagan really does believe that child pornography is a victimless crime. Do we benefit more from the CBC saying that such views are not allowed to be said? Or from challenging Flanagan on his views and countering those views with evidence in favour of the opposite? I support the latter. The reaction speaks volumes concerning 1) academic freedom 2) freedom of speech and 3) the responsibility of academics and intellectuals to discuss controversial and challenge unpopular positions. I find the treatment of Flanagan for stating an unpopular view which I disagree with no more acceptable then would find it if someone was treated the same way for stating an unpopular view which I agree with.

[Argus]

Tom Flanagan is a good example of why Intellectualism is often seen as being abandoned by the right.

Do you think the above is an example of intellectualism?

[jacee]

I am saying that the religious right and the anti-sex feminists have spent a lot of money over the past fifty years in long, detailed studies trying to prove that pornography and violent pornography causes sexual violence and they have never been able to do so. Any desensitization is very temporary.

Who cares?

They can't be fixed.

Jailing them for the protection of children is the best we can do.

[Peanutbutter]

Who cares?

They can't be fixed.

Jailing them for the protection of children is the best we can do.

Yes, I agree. Anyone convicted of sexually abusing children needs to be automatically considered a dangerous offender and never let out. Or after serving their prison time they be housed in a secure mental facility until they are no longer a threat to children. Which will be never. I don't mind my tax dollars paying for that.

[Pliny]

Do you think the above is an example of intellectualism?

Flanagan, as a University Professor, is a member of the intellectualist class.

[g_bambino]

Anyone convicted of sexually abusing children needs to be automatically considered a dangerous offender and never let out. Or after serving their prison time they be housed in a secure mental facility until they are no longer a threat to children.

That's not who she's talking about.

[Argus]

Who cares?

They can't be fixed.

Jailing them for the protection of children is the best we can do.

Not very thoughtful. Most of them have never gone near children.

[jacee]

Not very thoughtful. Most of them have never gone near children.

Child rape is a crime.

So is watching it for entertainment.

Get over it.

[TimG]

So is watching it for entertainment.

Why is it a crime for a 16 year old to look at naked pictures of his 14 year old girlfriend? Edited March 8, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

Why is it a crime for a 16 year old to look at naked pictures of his 14 year old girlfriend?

Find me cases of injustice.

I don't believe the law is being applied unfairly.

And that argument does not justify men watching children being violently raped.