2011 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

[zY|]

I find it hard to disagree with you faggots. wtf kind of gay shit is that?

[sbjj]

I get into it all the time with my liberal and conservative friends. They just can not grasp why I think people should have as much personal freedom as possible. They automatically assume because I am for complete legalization of ALL drugs that I must somehow take such drugs. But that is where I think their simplistic view of things comes into play. They just can not find it in themselves to give others the freedom to do things that they themselves do not agree with.

i have never touched a hard drug in my life but I believe if someone wants to be a crackhead that is their choice. I have never been overweight, but if someone wants to eat themselves to death...go for it, have fun.

As for the child porn thing, I understand that is different than drug consumption. But it is still not an act. Last I checked, you can not be arrested for downloading information on how to cook meth. But you could be if you actually do cook it. Even though you should be free to cook as much as you want.

[SPX]

i have never touched a hard drug in my life but I believe if someone wants to be a crackhead that is their choice.

I half agree. I definitely do think that people should have the freedom to do whatever they want if them smoking crack only effects them, then okay. But I think questions arise once you consider the residual effects on society. Even though it limits personal freedom, is the trade-off worth it if ultimate society as a whole is better off? That is the question.

[Luke]

To all you pedi's

[MMA_scientist]

To all you pedi's

I think you meant to call SPX, sbjj, and zY Pedo's. Pedi, I think is like a jedi that rides a moped.

[Vandelay]

and lol at luke fucking up a putdown

[Vandelay]

[Svino]

part of me thinks no, part of me thinks yes (again, because you are creating a market for child porn and so are somewhat complicit in the actual act).

This is always the explanation given for why punishment for possession of child porn are so high, but I don't believe it's truly representative of the law's rationale. If this were the real reason (and not just an excuse people use to prosecute people who look at something icky), then:

1) You wouldn't see people trying to ban illustrated porn with the same law.

2) You wouldn't see the law absurdly applied to cases with teens who take nude photos of themselves and send pictures to their bf's and gf's.

3) The law would be more targeted at people who paid for child porn than at those who simply possess it.


To take that last point to the extreme, one could even argue that if you distribute lots and lots of collected child porn for free, you would be undercutting the business of people selling child porn (in the same way that file sharing networks allegedly hurt the music and movie industries) and thereby reducing the incentive for creation of new pornography. And yet, if you were to do this, I have a feeling you would not be hailed as a hero for hurting the pornographers' business.

[Luke]

I think you meant to call SPX, sbjj, and zY Pedo's. Pedi, I think is like a jedi that rides a moped.

I is right next to O on the keyboard..............sue me, but thanks Zy for the typo lesson

Pedi, I think is like a jedi that rides a moped.

what the freak are you talking about?

[Luke]

Odd..........didnt know they was such a thing as a Browns fan

[Ludo]

This is always the explanation given for why punishment for possession of child porn are so high, but I don't believe it's truly representative of the law's rationale. If this were the real reason (and not just an excuse people use to prosecute people who look at something icky), then:

1) You wouldn't see people trying to ban illustrated porn with the same law.

2) You wouldn't see the law absurdly applied to cases with teens who take nude photos of themselves and send pictures to their bf's and gf's.

3) The law would be more targeted at people who paid for child porn than at those who simply possess it.


To take that last point to the extreme, one could even argue that if you distribute lots and lots of collected child porn for free, you would be undercutting the business of people selling child porn (in the same way that file sharing networks allegedly hurt the music and movie industries) and thereby reducing the incentive for creation of new pornography. And yet, if you were to do this, I have a feeling you would not be hailed as a hero for hurting the pornographers' business.

The logic is flawed because like anything that gets filmed it's not always about the money so much as "expression". These people are in it for money, otherwise they wouldn't be selling it obviously, but thats only one part of it. Take away the ability to make money off of it through digital distribution and they would still be doing it because money isn't the only driving force here. Some of them are doing it because they are just for whatever reason deeply disturbed people who's moral compass has flipped, and to be clear I am in no way trying to condone, justify, or excuse any of this by saying that. There are probably plenty of people engaging in these acts and or searching the shit out for a variety of reasons, none of which make it right.

However you slice it taking away minimal amounts of money won't hurt the industry anymore than it has the music and film industries. There is a reason other than inflation that there is only one film in the top 15 highest grossing films of all time made prior to the year 2000. If you totally took away the market, and made it entirely impossible to make any money whatsoever on these films they would still be made for the same reason Death Metal took off and was circulated by mail between fans. Demo tapes were passed around between members of magazine subscribers. Where there is an audience, paying or not, there will be content.

[Svino]

Take away the ability to make money off of it through digital distribution and they would still be doing it because money isn't the only driving force here.

This is kind of a separate argument from the "you're supporting the pornographers" thing, and I do think there's probably truth in it. I'm still not comfortable with it being used as a justification for harsh punishments for possession though.

For example: several years ago, an Islamist terrorist groups in Iraq released a couple of videos showing beheadings of captive Americans. Presumably, the entire purpose of the beheadings was to send a message to America by getting Americans to watch the videos. Now as it happened (as I am the type of person that will look at anything on the internet), I did track the videos down on Liveleak and watched them. Does that fact make me (and numerous journalists worldwide) complicit in the gruesome murder of a couple of Americans? Would it justify giving us lengthy prison sentences? I don't really feel that it does.

[Ludo]

This is kind of a separate argument from the "you're supporting the pornographers" thing, and I do think there's probably truth in it. I'm still not comfortable with it being used as a justification for harsh punishments for possession though.

For example: several years ago, an Islamist terrorist groups in Iraq released a couple of videos showing beheadings of captive Americans. Presumably, the entire purpose of the beheadings was to send a message to America by getting Americans to watch the videos. Now as it happened (as I am the type of person that will look at anything on the internet), I did track the videos down on Liveleak and watched them. Does that fact make me (and numerous journalists worldwide) complicit in the gruesome murder of a couple of Americans? Would it justify giving us lengthy prison sentences? I don't really feel that it does.

Apples and oranges. There is a vast ocean of difference between beheading adults caught in the midst of a war which has more or less raged on in one form or another, whether secretly or otherwise, for the better part of the last nine hundred years and the molestation of children who will spend years upon years suffering the events captured on tape for random people to see.

On one side you have the stirrings of an old war taken up on new principles. On the other you have children who are unable to defend themselves while being abused in ways that will probably scar them indefinitely as well as alter the way they develop as human beings. Murder and rape aren't the same thing at all, nor do they have the same repercussions for those committing, viewing, or connected to any parties involved. People aren't downloading the videos of those captives to get pleasure from them or to perhaps one day behead a captive themselves. However that is the case for probably close to 99% of people who download child porn.

Also there is a general agreement that the rape of children is a much more despicable act than murdering someone. Even among criminals child molesters are instant targets in the general population. Often in prisons they are segregated for the entirety of they're incarceration in order to prevent them being killed in prison. The only other type of convict to receive this kind of treatment is a former police officer. I suppose the reasoning for this is that while there may not be honor among thieves there is a line that even multiple murderers and serial rapists consider "too far".

I'm not saying the punishments aren't out of whack, I'm saying that this "brand" of crime is unique in the sense that nothing else really measures up to the kind of damage this unleashes. It hits a spot for almost anyone. Everyone has at one time been a child and while not everyone has children everyone can at least relate to one. For Me whenever I hear about these types of crimes I immediately hope it never happens to one of the children in My own family, even though I don't have kids.

[zY|]

Anyone see this 'personhood initiative' my state is voting on today? That life begins at 'fertilization'.

[sbjj]

Anyone see this 'personhood initiative' my state is voting on today? That life begins at 'fertilization'.

ZY, yea I know about it. I do not agree with it. But it is your states right IMO. But it will get overturned in the court system anyway.

I just do not understand the Pro-Life lobby(I was once Pro-Life). They have a clear cut argument that life begins somewhere around 4 to 5 months(I think). You know, where the child can possibly live outside of the mother. But they always go for this Life begins at conception crap.

I think there is a legit debate that the fetus(child) could be protected by the constitution before the child is actually born. But the religious folks do not help their case with life at fertilization crap.