waldo Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 Flanagan was just another of the many past/current cadre of Harper Conservatives that joined in with Alberta's Wildrose Party... where the most immediate distancing began.Flanagan - brought down by 'Levi Little Mustache'!!! IdleNoMore! Quote
jacee Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Barbara Kay: A distinguished career vanishes with the wind After reading her column, which I encourage you to do, I can only hope that her career "vanishes" along with Tom Flanagan's. Her reply to my email is chilling: Jacee: EVERY CHILD APPEARING IN CHILD PORN HAS BEEN, OR IS BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED. Barbara Kay: That was Flanagan's point. What he was saying was that whether a voyeur watches or does not watch the film, the child has already been harmed and the voyeur's watching does that child no further physical harm. You still don't get it. Oh I get it alright, Barbara Kay! A creep's right to view child porn is more important than a child's right not to be repeatedly re-victimized for market value. I also encourage reading another perspective: Tom Flanagan puts personal liberty ahead of victims pain Edited March 1, 2013 by jacee Quote
g_bambino Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 Oh I get it alright, Barbara Kay! A creep's right to view child porn is more important than a child's right not to be repeatedly re-victimized. Apparently you don't get it; that's quite obviously not what she said. Why do you feel it necessary to resort to dishonesty? Quote
cybercoma Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 To consume child pornography is to create demand for children to be sexually abused. Is that as bad as raping the child yourself? Of course not. It's still reprehensible though. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 To consume child pornography is to create demand for children to be sexually abused. Is that as bad as raping the child yourself? Of course not. It's still reprehensible though. I think the images would be made, even if there were no demand for them; I suspect whomever produces it does so for their own enjoyment first, that of others second. There seems to be no monetary gain to be got from it; images are swapped or merely downloaded for free, as far as I can tell from what I've read in the news. Regardless, just because it's made doesn't mean it has to be looked at; so, yes, doing so remains a reprehensible act. The question is: how is that reprehension best expressed? Quote
Argus Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 What about the children in the porn? They are being harmed. Are they not Argus? Children are harmed when they are molested or abused. It's debatable what harm is done them when some stranger a continent away views a picture of them taken perhaps years or even decades later. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 How is it libel if the very person admit it? You said he was a subscriber. What he said was that he somehow got on their mailing list. There's a rather large difference between those two statements. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 Children are harmed when they are molested or abused. It's debatable what harm is done them when some stranger a continent away views a picture of them taken perhaps years or even decades later. There can be harm should the pics re-surface again....and again...and again.... Quote
guyser Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 You said he was a subscriber. What he said was that he somehow got on their mailing list. There's a rather large difference between those two statements. All true. But do you think any court would convict on libel considering he knowingly remained on that mailing list? The fact alone, that he is on that list, is the damning or defaming part , categorizing it as 'subscribed' would do no forseeable future harm , in which the facts of the case would be based on. Quote
Argus Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Mailing list = subscriber. Give me your address. I can call and arrange you be put on their mailing list. Would that make you a subscriber? Nor did he say that the mailings included naked pictures. It could have been any kind of information groups send out. The point he was trying to make with that was that it's easily possible to find yourself exposed to this material, or even in possession of it without ever wanting to or seeking to, and then be punished by law. Edited March 1, 2013 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 He's pretty naive if he thinks looking at those pictures is strictly passive and doesn't harm anyone There's no psychological evidence that looking at porn harms anyone. . I didn't realize that those comments were made in 2009. The link to the 2009 article doesn't work now. Apparently that 2009 thing was why they were laying in wait for him with a camera and a question... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 Children are harmed when they are molested or abused. It's debatable what harm is done them when some stranger a continent away views a picture of them taken perhaps years or even decades later. and your comments throughout this thread, and your suggestion that you've expressed the 'same view' elsewhere in past MLW thread(s?), indicates your words are purposeful and well chosen for intent. At least you're not claiming an "inelegant choice of words" like some of the Flanagan apologists. I certainly have no sympathy for child molesters, but I do have some grave doubts about putting people in jail because of their taste in pictures,” said Flanagan. “It’s a real issue of personal liberty and to what extent we put people in jail for doing something in which they do not harm another person interpretations of that quote take differing paths - I've not read many that actually attempt to claim the, 'preference or liking for pictures of naked children... is victimless'. Quote
Argus Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) Do people not know what it means to be subscribed to a mailing list? An internet mailing list means you get stuff almost every day. A mailing list by snailmail, which is what it sounds like he was talking about, from decades ago, would be where some flyer or propaganda sheet shows up in your mailbox every month or so. I got all kinds of junk in my mailbox, 99% of which I just go "meh" and throw away. Edited March 2, 2013 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 I don't see how anyone can repair their reputation after a comment like that. With whom? Most of the people taking great delight in his downfall hated him to begin with. I always thought, when I came across him on one of those CBC panels, that he was a thoughtful and articulate man. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 Barbara Kay: A distinguished career vanishes with the wind After reading her column, which I encourage you to do, I can only hope that her career "vanishes" along with Tom Flanagan's. Her reply to my email is chilling: It really horrifies you that not all people agree with your opinions, doesn't it? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 To consume child pornography is to create demand for children to be sexually abused. Is that as bad as raping the child yourself? Of course not. It's still reprehensible though. That's absolute nonsense. It's like saying, you know that famous picture of the little girl running, naked from the Vietnam era, because her clothes had been burnt off with napalm? Well, viewing that picture is creating a demand for children to be burned with napalm! Yes, it's _that_ silly. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 I think the images would be made, even if there were no demand for them; Today. Yes, in 99.999% of the cases. There was one point in the early 1970s, I believe, where a mistaken act of Congress made child pornography legal. That gave rise to actual porn magazines featuring pictures of naked children. That was the only time I'm aware of when demand actually gave rise to a need for supply. But nowadays, there's just no way to safely profit off this stuff. That's not to say a couple of molesters might not meet on the internet and exchange pictures and maybe try and inspire each other to do something new, but my understanding is that constitutes a tiny, tiny percentage of what we term 'child porn' anyway. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 There can be harm should the pics re-surface again....and again...and again.... If you say so. I'm trying to imagine how I would feel if I knew some complete stranger in Australia was looking at naked pictures of me as a six year old and all I'm getting is a big shrug. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) That's absolute nonsense. It's like saying, you know that famous picture of the little girl running, naked from the Vietnam era, because her clothes had been burnt off with napalm? Well, viewing that picture is creating a demand for children to be burned with napalm! Yes, it's _that_ silly. Argus... know when to fold em! . I absolutely condemn the sexual abuse of children, including the use of children to produce pornography. These are crimes and should be punished under the law. Last night, in an academic setting, I raised a theoretical question about how far criminalization should extend toward the consumption of pornography. My words were badly chosen, and in the resulting uproar I was not able to express my abhorrence of child pornography and the sexual abuse of children. I apologize unreservedly to all who were offended by my statement, and most especially to victims of sexual abuse and their families. Edited March 2, 2013 by waldo Quote
Argus Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 All true. But do you think any court would convict on libel considering he knowingly remained on that mailing list? The fact alone, that he is on that list, is the damning or defaming part , categorizing it as 'subscribed' would do no forseeable future harm , in which the facts of the case would be based on. First, this is a rather well-known individual heavily involved in politics and media. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm betting all manner of organizations send him (or used to send him) tons of stuff all the time in hopes he might be convinced to either lend his influence or give them publicity. Second... Stockwell Day. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 and your comments throughout this thread, and your suggestion that you've expressed the 'same view' elsewhere in past MLW thread(s?), indicates your words are purposeful and well chosen for intent. At least you're not claiming an "inelegant choice of words" like some of the Flanagan apologists. And so? I think most of the participants on this topic have only a threadbare awareness of the law, or of the makeup of child porn. For that matter, most people who talk about child porn can hardly hide their revulsion of those who are interested in viewing this type of material And I think the law mirrors that disgust and moral indignation in pedophiles. The thing is, pedophiles didn't ask to be the way they are. Any more than schizophrenics did. So I find it hard to bring forth the proper degree of moral indignation for them lusting after children when, let's face it, they can't help it. It's not like it's a decision or choice of anyone involved. Thus my assessment of them, and the law, is, I think more logical than that of most of the emotional types who can't get over their disgust. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 Argus... know when to fold em! . That would be when I'm shown to be wrong about something. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Sleipnir Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) That's absolute nonsense. It's like saying, you know that famous picture of the little girl running, naked from the Vietnam era, because her clothes had been burnt off with napalm? Well, viewing that picture is creating a demand for children to be burned with napalm! ....not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic. Edited March 2, 2013 by Sleipnir Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
Argus Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 ....not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic. Would you believe both? Look, adults have been lusting after children for thousands of years. Don't ask me why. It's not something I've ever studied. But I know it enormously predates pictures and videos. It's always happened. It always will happen. The presence or absence of cameras has no affect on that. The men who molest children do so out of their own urges, not because they want to get some good pictures to put on the internet. To suggest that, absent cameras, they would stop is silly. Taking the picture is not the reason for molesting. It is a byproduct, a testimony, a witness, evidence, whatever you want. But it's not the cause. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
TimG Posted March 2, 2013 Report Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) ....not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic.I agree with the general principal that anyone who pays or encourages people to provide child porn are committing a crime but what this is lost in this outrage is not all pictures of naked kids are porn. This picture if an excellent example yet someone with this picture on their hard-drive would be facing jail time. In fact, my understanding that the law is broad enough that simply visiting a website with this picture would put you jail time. Don't you think this is over kill? Edited March 2, 2013 by TimG Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.