claiming distributing child porn is the act of abusing the child is like claiming distributing the picture of a murder victim kills the victim again.
Where did I say anything about distributing or viewing of child porn? I said "child porn" itself is the "physical act" of using an unwilling participant in a physical act. I never said anything about viewing or distribution.
But neither your cringing because of the thoughts of others nor your lying about what actually is occuring are legitimate reasons to bar child porn.
You must be confusing my post with someone else's. I said just the opposite. The people who are a threat to society are those who take their ideas and initiate or participate in a physical act to force their desires (any desires, not just sexual) upon an unwilling participant. It's that simple. If you don't act on it, your not a threat.
As an example. Hitler had some really crazy ideas. His ideas by themselves were not a danger to society. What is a danger is that hundreds of thousands of individuals willingly performed physical acts against unwilling individuals in order to further Hitlers desires. But if you look at it logically, Hitler never pulled the trigger once. It was the physical acts of violence against unwilling individuals that was a threat to freedom and society. It's always been that way, it will always be that way.
Re:I will police my own FreeNet node if I run one!
on
Contrabandwidth
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Certainly. Freedom of speech means you can say anything you want, about anyone you want, anytime you want. But it does not mean you have to listen to other people when they get on the soapbox. ie, they can say it, but you can refuse to allow them to use your node, blow-horn or soapbox to say it with.
Freedom of speech does not guarantee that other people will listen to what you have to say. Nor does it guarantee that anyone will help you say it. Your node is still your node and you can dictate what does and does not go on with it.
The important thing is, as a society, we do not tell people what they can and cannot talk about by passing laws, rules or regulations. We leave the choice of what to talk about and listen up to each and every individual. That allows individuals to simply say, if you are going to talk about it, you'll have to do it on your own node.
And, as a society we say, you can talk about it all you want, but if you initiate or participate in a physical action against an unwilling participant, then you are a threat to our society and must be dealt with.
All that is simply an exaggerated example of "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never harm me". It may be a cute phrase to teach children to deal with confrontation. But it says it all. Unless someone picks up a stick or stone (or some other form of physical contact occurs), words, ideas and thoughts can never harm anyone.
Freedom of speech is simply saying what you think and or feel, your opinion on any idea or concept. Child pornography is the "act" of using children for your perverted enjoyment. That is not speech, that is action that involves an unwilling participant and that actions is a threat to freedom loving people and should be delt with by those who you threaten.
It is important to keep the distinction between an idea, thought or speech from that of an act or action against others. The freedom to discuss anything, have opinions about anything is an inalienable right that all people have. It is not granted by the government nor can it be rightfully taken away by the government. We are all born with that right.
There is NEVER a legitimate reason to censor free speech, never.
Thank you for the clarification and the interesting history information. You are correct, one of the main reasons for the war of Independence was "taxation without representation". That's interesting that it was actually the chancellor of the exchequer and not the king.
Here in states, when one talks about the war of Independence (which does not happen very often), it is usually associated with revolting against the Kings army / decision. I guess being a King means you get the blame whether you like it or not.:)
Just out of curiosity, do you have any good links to history or information on the UK monarchy? I'm very curious about the effect, influence or public opinion of the Monarchy since the Glorious Revolution. I think a lot of Americans wonder (as I do), why have a Monarchy? And it would be interesting to learn more about it.
Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Illich Lenin, Pol Pot, Julius Ceasar, are well known icons? Funny, most people do not consider those people as icons, most people call them tyrants, dictators, etc. You call them icons? scary. And no, they did not all stand for freedom (they would gladly admit that), look up "Marxism" in the dictionary, it will help you out on this one.
What does Martin Luther's kids have to do with anything? Geeez, I guess we can't talk bout people who do great things for society if why think they suck at being parents huh? Well, since nobody will remember you name, I suppose that ensure that you will be an outstanding parent. You'll do nothing for freedom, equality or principle, you'll enforce any law because you were told to do so, but you'll be at every Saturday soccer game for the kids. What a pleasant thought.
You don't know who any of those ladies are for the same reason you do not know what YOUR Constitution says. Your much to eager to give up your freedom and do what you are told because you feel "obligated". You should really try and think for yourself. A good start would be to try and figure out why you concider Joseph Stallin to be an Icon.
For future reference, here is the definition of "icon", since I am sure you will not take the time to look it up, just like you have never taken the time to read your constituion.
Icon: "Any person or thing that is revered"
You called Joseph Stallin an Icon? That's really creepy.
You not only have rights, you also have obligations. Part of being a citizen is the acceptance of those obligations. You have to pay taxes and serve on juries.
That's an interesting point. In fact, the king of England said those exact same things to the American colonists just before the war of Independence. And a funny thing happened, the people we call the founding fathers of the United States, you know, those guys who said that "all men are created equal", told the king to stuff it.
So by that example, it appears that freedom loving people, who care about their country and their fellow citizens, have the "obligation" to voice their opposition to oppressive laws, rules and regulations, and refuse to submit if their conscience dictates so.
If the Congress decides that it is necessary, you may be drafted into military service.
If the congress decides? Where did you get that idea from? Where, in the Constitution or the bill of rights, does it says anything about submitting to a draft?
In fact, I see that the 13Th amendment to the Constitution specifically says that "involuntary servitude" is not acceptable in the United States.
Yes, we have a draft, but perhaps you should research where the draft originated and the ramifications it has on your freedom, or lack of. A draft means you can be drafted for any reason that, according to you, the congress deems appropriate. You know, not long ago it was legal to own black people, and illegal for women to vote. Would you gladly "serve" your country if the congress drafted you to repress blacks and women? Hmmmm?
There is no free lunch.
No, there is not. But there is this little thing called freedom. A concept that seems to be hard for some people to comprehend. A concept which requires people to think for themselves and make their own decisions and allow others the same privilege.
With one statement you just trampled on the inalienable rights of every citizen of the United States and allowed for the possibility that each and every one of us could be drafted against our will and forced to kill other human beings, simply because a small group of people (the congress) decries it.
The icons of history are those who stand up for principles of freedom and equality. Does anyone remember the names of the 1000's of police officers who did not think for themselves and simply enforced the segregation laws? No, we remember Martin Luther King. Does anyone remember the names of millions of men who repressed women for decades and did not allow them to vote or own property? No, we remember Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cadey Stanton.
I totally agree. Why is it that people seem to think of 1,000,000 people being tortured worse than 1 person. If you are that one person, does it matter that 999,999 others are being tortured just like you.
Each and every individual is only capable of feeling so much pain and the fact that the other people being tortured are also feeling pain does not increase or decrease your pain, nor does your pain influence their pain. (on a physical level)
Emotionally we can say that it is more difficult (for some reason) to deal with the torture of millions than it is to deal with the torture of one. But that does not decrease the amount of pain the 1 tortured individual experienced. If you really look at it logically, if someone says it's worse to torture 1 million than 1, it's because they put more value in the group than the individual. A sad statement.
I do not think this is a situation where the sum of the participants increases the total of the crime. Torture one person or torture a million, the torturer is still guilty of the same crime (torturing people) and the tortured people are just as tortured whether they experienced it alone or in a group.
If they're not repressed then they'll be acted upon. Do you remember what you were like at 14?
Yes I do. And for the most part is sucked because I was having those exact same sexual feelings and what I really wanted was to "know" about sex. What it is like and how to do it. Sadly, I had to learn about sex by comparing notes with the other sex therapists on playground.
You can talk about repressing feelings all you want. But as you personally know, you can only do that for so long until they come out. You ask me if I remember what it was like being 14. Have you stopped to think about what it was like when YOU were 14?
I'll bet if you were honest with yourself, the reason you speak so highly of repressing feelings is simply because you were unable to repress all of your sexual feeling at that age and now you are suffering from the guilt of morality that you have chosen to place up yourself.
In other words, you do not want someone at 14 making the same mistakes you made...right? Or to put it another way, you think it is OK to lay your guilt onto a 14 year old boy and expect him to succeed where you failed miserably.
BTW, you did not fail, you have simply been brainwashed into thinking you did.
celebrated and enjoyed in the proper place and repressed in improper places] - [But freedom to do what one wants is not freedom from being told what to do
Again, you have been brainwashed into thinking "proper" and "improper" can be defined for everyone. Just who decides what "proper" and "improper" are? You, me, the government, god, Mohamed, van halen, general motors, (insert any entity here> or the individual? If you choose anyone but the individual then you do not understand what personal freedom is.
You should really try to be more honest with yourself. Lets cut to the chase and see if you can deal with it. You think the morality of all humans can be found in the bible, right? If we all listened to the teaching of Jesus Christ, we would all be better off.
So in other words, when it comes to morality or freedom, you can't think for yourself. Everything you think, speak and write has been put in your head by a book. And when it comes to logical discussions about such matters your arguments always return to your faith.
Imagine if I said 14 year old boys should repress their desire to hop scotch because those feelings are obviously destructive to their moral being. (it says so in my bible) Kinda nuts huh? I'm assuming I know what is right for everyone because I believe something I read in a book.
Of course, you'll disagree because your book is "right". Ya ya ya, we have all heard it before. PLease, get a life and stay out of everyone elses!
Your assuming that you know what the right "realm" is for sexual activity for other people. You also use an analogy of violence when talking about sexual feelings. Finally, you say that a "society" should "tell" it's members what to do.
Now take a hard look at this mate. All I said was that if a 14 year old boy is having sexual feelings they should be acknowledged as natural and to not repress them. Notice I did not say those feelings should be acted upon or even encouraged.
You on the other hand, immediately jump to the conclusion that sexual feelings should be dealt with just as violent feelings are dealt with. And that there is a proper "realm" for people to have sex in, a realm that apparently you or your religion define. And then you say that society should "Tell" it's members what to think about sex.
Imaging two kinds on the playground. One says, I'm having these sexual feelings and I'm having the urge to touch girls. And the other kid says "I'm having these violent feelings and I have the urge to kill girls". According to you, we treat them the same.
I hate to break this to you mate, sex and violence are NOT similar. That may be hard for you to comprehend, but look at the facts. The act of sex involves two people who choose to be there. The act of violence, by it's very nature does not, the act of violence must have a victim, otherwise it would not be violence.
People like you who use analogies of violence when talking about sexual issues are really scary. It means you are either the type of person who really thinks sex and violence are closely related or it means that you think everyone else thinks sex and violence are related. Either way, you are a threat to peaceful people who place value on personal freedom and choice. Creepy.
What a loving and supportive father you are. I'm sure that as you grow old, you can be confident, that your children will will do that same for/to you.
That post is a work of art. You took a hypothetical 14 year old boy who is having natural sexual feelings and you made him Ignorant, Irresponsible and get this....a CRIMINAL!!!
You really need to read your own post. And then you need to find some better role models. It appears that you have never actually been witness to a person (of any age) who is well adjusted with their sexuality. Therefore you assume that any amount of sexuality in a person, which is not guided by religion, will turn that person into an "Irresponsible Ignorant Criminal". Your depressed!
It's his fantasy and it's none of your business what it is, who it is, or who he is "really making love to". And hell, he may not be "making love", he may be in an orgy... phuking. (one can only hope):)
"we also have the urges to lie, cheat, steal, hurt others, and even hurt ourselves"
Sorry, I do not have those feelings. If you do, you should seek help. What your feeling is not natural, nor is it healthy. And scariest of all, when talking about natural sexual desire, you use the analogy of "lie, cheat, steal, hurt others" as examples of similar human behavior. Now that, is really the telling part of your views about sexual desire, creepy.
Research paper = good Porn = bad Young boy = Becomming a sexual being
Grand total = Neurotic young man who feels guilty for acknowledging his sexual feelings.
Why is it so hard for some people to acknowledge the simple fact that young people of all ages have sexual feelings that are natural. And to repress those feelings and smother them in guilt is a very very damaging thing to do.
OH ya, I forget, all the fundamentalist (pick any religion) know exactly how we are all supposed to feel. Excuse me while I go puke!
Um, who is this "we" you are talking about? Last time I checked, the decision was made thousands of years before our births. So how can someone who has not yet been born make a choice?
I think your statement would be better stated as "but THEY chose to follow satan, and the rest of us are suffering the consequenses because GOD is an ASSHOLE who punishes people for choices they never made!"
Slashdot Mirror
Where did I say anything about distributing or viewing of child porn? I said "child porn" itself is the "physical act" of using an unwilling participant in a physical act. I never said anything about viewing or distribution.
You must be confusing my post with someone else's. I said just the opposite. The people who are a threat to society are those who take their ideas and initiate or participate in a physical act to force their desires (any desires, not just sexual) upon an unwilling participant. It's that simple. If you don't act on it, your not a threat.
As an example. Hitler had some really crazy ideas. His ideas by themselves were not a danger to society. What is a danger is that hundreds of thousands of individuals willingly performed physical acts against unwilling individuals in order to further Hitlers desires. But if you look at it logically, Hitler never pulled the trigger once. It was the physical acts of violence against unwilling individuals that was a threat to freedom and society. It's always been that way, it will always be that way.
Certainly. Freedom of speech means you can say anything you want, about anyone you want, anytime you want. But it does not mean you have to listen to other people when they get on the soapbox. ie, they can say it, but you can refuse to allow them to use your node, blow-horn or soapbox to say it with.
Freedom of speech does not guarantee that other people will listen to what you have to say. Nor does it guarantee that anyone will help you say it. Your node is still your node and you can dictate what does and does not go on with it.
The important thing is, as a society, we do not tell people what they can and cannot talk about by passing laws, rules or regulations. We leave the choice of what to talk about and listen up to each and every individual. That allows individuals to simply say, if you are going to talk about it, you'll have to do it on your own node.
And, as a society we say, you can talk about it all you want, but if you initiate or participate in a physical action against an unwilling participant, then you are a threat to our society and must be dealt with.
All that is simply an exaggerated example of "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never harm me". It may be a cute phrase to teach children to deal with confrontation. But it says it all. Unless someone picks up a stick or stone (or some other form of physical contact occurs), words, ideas and thoughts can never harm anyone.
Freedom of speech is simply saying what you think and or feel, your opinion on any idea or concept. Child pornography is the "act" of using children for your perverted enjoyment. That is not speech, that is action that involves an unwilling participant and that actions is a threat to freedom loving people and should be delt with by those who you threaten.
It is important to keep the distinction between an idea, thought or speech from that of an act or action against others. The freedom to discuss anything, have opinions about anything is an inalienable right that all people have. It is not granted by the government nor can it be rightfully taken away by the government. We are all born with that right.
There is NEVER a legitimate reason to censor free speech, never.
Thank you for the clarification and the interesting history information. You are correct, one of the main reasons for the war of Independence was "taxation without representation". That's interesting that it was actually the chancellor of the exchequer and not the king.
:)
Here in states, when one talks about the war of Independence (which does not happen very often), it is usually associated with revolting against the Kings army / decision. I guess being a King means you get the blame whether you like it or not.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any good links to history or information on the UK monarchy? I'm very curious about the effect, influence or public opinion of the Monarchy since the Glorious Revolution. I think a lot of Americans wonder (as I do), why have a Monarchy? And it would be interesting to learn more about it.
Thanks again for the information.
Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Illich Lenin, Pol Pot, Julius Ceasar, are well known icons? Funny, most people do not consider those people as icons, most people call them tyrants, dictators, etc. You call them icons? scary. And no, they did not all stand for freedom (they would gladly admit that), look up "Marxism" in the dictionary, it will help you out on this one.
What does Martin Luther's kids have to do with anything? Geeez, I guess we can't talk bout people who do great things for society if why think they suck at being parents huh? Well, since nobody will remember you name, I suppose that ensure that you will be an outstanding parent. You'll do nothing for freedom, equality or principle, you'll enforce any law because you were told to do so, but you'll be at every Saturday soccer game for the kids. What a pleasant thought.
You don't know who any of those ladies are for the same reason you do not know what YOUR Constitution says. Your much to eager to give up your freedom and do what you are told because you feel "obligated". You should really try and think for yourself. A good start would be to try and figure out why you concider Joseph Stallin to be an Icon.
For future reference, here is the definition of "icon", since I am sure you will not take the time to look it up, just like you have never taken the time to read your constituion.
Icon: "Any person or thing that is revered"
You called Joseph Stallin an Icon? That's really creepy.
That's an interesting point. In fact, the king of England said those exact same things to the American colonists just before the war of Independence. And a funny thing happened, the people we call the founding fathers of the United States, you know, those guys who said that "all men are created equal", told the king to stuff it.
So by that example, it appears that freedom loving people, who care about their country and their fellow citizens, have the "obligation" to voice their opposition to oppressive laws, rules and regulations, and refuse to submit if their conscience dictates so.
If the congress decides? Where did you get that idea from? Where, in the Constitution or the bill of rights, does it says anything about submitting to a draft?
In fact, I see that the 13Th amendment to the Constitution specifically says that "involuntary servitude" is not acceptable in the United States.
Yes, we have a draft, but perhaps you should research where the draft originated and the ramifications it has on your freedom, or lack of. A draft means you can be drafted for any reason that, according to you, the congress deems appropriate. You know, not long ago it was legal to own black people, and illegal for women to vote. Would you gladly "serve" your country if the congress drafted you to repress blacks and women? Hmmmm?
No, there is not. But there is this little thing called freedom. A concept that seems to be hard for some people to comprehend. A concept which requires people to think for themselves and make their own decisions and allow others the same privilege.
With one statement you just trampled on the inalienable rights of every citizen of the United States and allowed for the possibility that each and every one of us could be drafted against our will and forced to kill other human beings, simply because a small group of people (the congress) decries it.
The icons of history are those who stand up for principles of freedom and equality. Does anyone remember the names of the 1000's of police officers who did not think for themselves and simply enforced the segregation laws? No, we remember Martin Luther King. Does anyone remember the names of millions of men who repressed women for decades and did not allow them to vote or own property? No, we remember Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cadey Stanton.
Will anyone remember your name?
I totally agree. Why is it that people seem to think of 1,000,000 people being tortured worse than 1 person. If you are that one person, does it matter that 999,999 others are being tortured just like you.
Each and every individual is only capable of feeling so much pain and the fact that the other people being tortured are also feeling pain does not increase or decrease your pain, nor does your pain influence their pain. (on a physical level)
Emotionally we can say that it is more difficult (for some reason) to deal with the torture of millions than it is to deal with the torture of one. But that does not decrease the amount of pain the 1 tortured individual experienced. If you really look at it logically, if someone says it's worse to torture 1 million than 1, it's because they put more value in the group than the individual. A sad statement.
I do not think this is a situation where the sum of the participants increases the total of the crime. Torture one person or torture a million, the torturer is still guilty of the same crime (torturing people) and the tortured people are just as tortured whether they experienced it alone or in a group.
Yes I do. And for the most part is sucked because I was having those exact same sexual feelings and what I really wanted was to "know" about sex. What it is like and how to do it. Sadly, I had to learn about sex by comparing notes with the other sex therapists on playground.
You can talk about repressing feelings all you want. But as you personally know, you can only do that for so long until they come out. You ask me if I remember what it was like being 14. Have you stopped to think about what it was like when YOU were 14?
I'll bet if you were honest with yourself, the reason you speak so highly of repressing feelings is simply because you were unable to repress all of your sexual feeling at that age and now you are suffering from the guilt of morality that you have chosen to place up yourself.
In other words, you do not want someone at 14 making the same mistakes you made...right? Or to put it another way, you think it is OK to lay your guilt onto a 14 year old boy and expect him to succeed where you failed miserably.
BTW, you did not fail, you have simply been brainwashed into thinking you did.
Again, you have been brainwashed into thinking "proper" and "improper" can be defined for everyone. Just who decides what "proper" and "improper" are? You, me, the government, god, Mohamed, van halen, general motors, (insert any entity here> or the individual? If you choose anyone but the individual then you do not understand what personal freedom is.
You should really try to be more honest with yourself. Lets cut to the chase and see if you can deal with it. You think the morality of all humans can be found in the bible, right? If we all listened to the teaching of Jesus Christ, we would all be better off.
So in other words, when it comes to morality or freedom, you can't think for yourself. Everything you think, speak and write has been put in your head by a book. And when it comes to logical discussions about such matters your arguments always return to your faith.
Imagine if I said 14 year old boys should repress their desire to hop scotch because those feelings are obviously destructive to their moral being. (it says so in my bible) Kinda nuts huh? I'm assuming I know what is right for everyone because I believe something I read in a book.
Of course, you'll disagree because your book is "right". Ya ya ya, we have all heard it before. PLease, get a life and stay out of everyone elses!
Your assuming that you know what the right "realm" is for sexual activity for other people. You also use an analogy of violence when talking about sexual feelings. Finally, you say that a "society" should "tell" it's members what to do.
Now take a hard look at this mate. All I said was that if a 14 year old boy is having sexual feelings they should be acknowledged as natural and to not repress them. Notice I did not say those feelings should be acted upon or even encouraged.
You on the other hand, immediately jump to the conclusion that sexual feelings should be dealt with just as violent feelings are dealt with. And that there is a proper "realm" for people to have sex in, a realm that apparently you or your religion define. And then you say that society should "Tell" it's members what to think about sex.
Imaging two kinds on the playground. One says, I'm having these sexual feelings and I'm having the urge to touch girls. And the other kid says "I'm having these violent feelings and I have the urge to kill girls". According to you, we treat them the same.
I hate to break this to you mate, sex and violence are NOT similar. That may be hard for you to comprehend, but look at the facts. The act of sex involves two people who choose to be there. The act of violence, by it's very nature does not, the act of violence must have a victim, otherwise it would not be violence.
People like you who use analogies of violence when talking about sexual issues are really scary. It means you are either the type of person who really thinks sex and violence are closely related or it means that you think everyone else thinks sex and violence are related. Either way, you are a threat to peaceful people who place value on personal freedom and choice. Creepy.
What a loving and supportive father you are. I'm sure that as you grow old, you can be confident, that your children will will do that same for/to you.
How does a 14 year old boy having natural sexual feeling have anything to do with that site? Keep this "off topic" thread "on topic". :)
That post is a work of art. You took a hypothetical 14 year old boy who is having natural sexual feelings and you made him Ignorant, Irresponsible and get this....a CRIMINAL!!!
You really need to read your own post. And then you need to find some better role models. It appears that you have never actually been witness to a person (of any age) who is well adjusted with their sexuality. Therefore you assume that any amount of sexuality in a person, which is not guided by religion, will turn that person into an "Irresponsible Ignorant Criminal". Your depressed!
It's his fantasy and it's none of your business what it is, who it is, or who he is "really making love to". And hell, he may not be "making love", he may be in an orgy ... phuking. (one can only hope) :)
Sorry, I do not have those feelings. If you do, you should seek help. What your feeling is not natural, nor is it healthy. And scariest of all, when talking about natural sexual desire, you use the analogy of "lie, cheat, steal, hurt others" as examples of similar human behavior. Now that, is really the telling part of your views about sexual desire, creepy.
Hmmm, lets see if we can calculate this...
Research paper = good
Porn = bad
Young boy = Becomming a sexual being
Grand total = Neurotic young man who feels guilty for acknowledging his sexual feelings.
Why is it so hard for some people to acknowledge the simple fact that young people of all ages have sexual feelings that are natural. And to repress those feelings and smother them in guilt is a very very damaging thing to do.
OH ya, I forget, all the fundamentalist (pick any religion) know exactly how we are all supposed to feel. Excuse me while I go puke!
I think your statement would be better stated as "but THEY chose to follow satan, and the rest of us are suffering the consequenses because GOD is an ASSHOLE who punishes people for choices they never made!"
Ahhh, reality is so bitter/sweet!
If they have ANY opinion on those issues other than "It's up to each individual to decide" then they are just another political machine.