ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st April 2011, 11:40 AM   #161
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
Yes, we all know that. That has never been in dispute.

What is in dispute is these silly claims of yours:

- It's a crime to be a pedophile on the internet
- It's a crime to be attracted to someone under 16
- it's a crime to have pictures of someone under 16

If you can't back any of these up, it's because none of them are true. And it's ok for you to admit that.
You seem to be using a game of semantics to prove your point and Im trying not to being drawn into your silly game.

"it's a crime to have pictures of someone under 16"

Would you agree that it is a crime to have naked pictures of an infant? People have been prosecuted for this so I dont see how you can disagree.

"It's a crime to be a pedophile on the internet"

If you look at people under the age of 16 then you can potentionally be prosecuted in the UK.

"It's a crime to be attracted to someone under 16"

The law in the UK is so broad that it is possible for a crime to be committed if you are attracted to someone under 16. Read the bloody law. Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia if you even watch or read a cartoon.
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 11:41 AM   #162
JFrankA
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,054
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for taking naked pictures of your child. Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for looking at images of under 16 year olds on the internet.
You notice that anytime you mention the law, right or wrong, someone actually did some action.

That's the difference.

Which brings me to this:
If I age play with my girlfriend, will I get arrested? In the US, there are quite a few porn stars who are far over eighteen who play very convincing little girls. Check out "Not the Bradys XXX". How come those people aren't arrested?
JFrankA is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 11:43 AM   #163
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
There is no "crime of pedophilia." Pedophilia is an attraction. Attraction of any type is not a crime in any civilized country.

It's not uncommon for people to talk past one another on these forums, but I'm getting the impression that you're not even listening to yourself.
Of course pedophilia is an attraction but the law does not view it as such.
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 11:53 AM   #164
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by JFrankA View Post
You notice that anytime you mention the law, right or wrong, someone actually did some action.

That's the difference.

Which brings me to this:
If I age play with my girlfriend, will I get arrested? In the US, there are quite a few porn stars who are far over eighteen who play very convincing little girls. Check out "Not the Bradys XXX". How come those people aren't arrested?
So if we could prove that someone was a pedophile without corroborating evidence should we prosecute them?
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 11:55 AM   #165
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,976
Originally Posted by simper View Post
You seem to be using a game of semantics to prove your point and Im trying not to being drawn into your silly game.
I'm honestly not.

Originally Posted by simper View Post
"it's a crime to have pictures of someone under 16"

Would you agree that it is a crime to have naked pictures of an infant? People have been prosecuted for this so I dont see how you can disagree.
I would agree, as I've stated before. But pictures of a naked infant is a bit different than simply a picture of someone under 16, wouldn't you say?

Here's the relevant quote from you I'm talking about:

Originally Posted by simper View Post
If you have a number of photos of your hypothetical 14 year old on your computer then you can be convicted( at least theoretically) in the UK.
You could have a million pictures if a 14 year old that you were attracted to, and no one could do anything about it unless those pictures were actually illegal pictures - pornographic or sexualized pictures.

Originally Posted by simper View Post
"It's a crime to be a pedophile on the internet"

If you look at people under the age of 16 then you can potentionally be prosecuted in the UK.
Then you'd better lock up all of Britain, because I'm sure people under 16 are in the news every day - accompanied by pictures. Or how about Facebook? Any Brit that has friends under 16 who has put up pictures of themselves can now be prosecuted?

Think, man. Think.

And even so! Even if looking at a picture of someone under 16 on the internet was illegal, it doesn't follow that it's illegal to be a pedophile on the internet! Those are two completely different issues!

A pedophile is a person who is attracted to pre-pubescent children, and it's in no way illegal for them to be on the internet, unless they actually do something illegal on the internet!

Originally Posted by simper View Post
"It's a crime to be attracted to someone under 16"

The law in the UK is so broad that it is possible for a crime to be committed if you are attracted to someone under 16. Read the bloody law. Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia if you even watch or read a cartoon.
The law you quoted? About sexualized pictures of children? In no way can that be used to prosecute someone for being attracted to anyone.

Believe me, no one can be prosecuted for being attracted to someone. The very idea is silly. How would you know? How would you prove it? Why would it matter to anyone?

Last edited by Ryokan; 21st April 2011 at 11:58 AM.
Ryokan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 11:56 AM   #166
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,370
Originally Posted by simper View Post
This law may be slightly insane but it does exsist and in theory you can go to jail for having cartoon images on your computer.
That was not your original claim.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 11:56 AM   #167
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,976
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Of course pedophilia is an attraction but the law does not view it as such.
The law doesn't mention pedophilia at all. We've been over this. Being a pedophile isn't illegal.
Ryokan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 12:33 PM   #168
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
I'm honestly not.



I would agree, as I've stated before. But pictures of a naked infant is a bit different than simply a picture of someone under 16, wouldn't you say?

Here's the relevant quote from you I'm talking about:



You could have a million pictures if a 14 year old that you were attracted to, and no one could do anything about it unless those pictures were actually illegal pictures - pornographic or sexualized pictures.



Then you'd better lock up all of Britain, because I'm sure people under 16 are in the news every day - accompanied by pictures. Or how about Facebook? Any Brit that has friends under 16 who has put up pictures of themselves can now be prosecuted?

Think, man. Think.

And even so! Even if looking at a picture of someone under 16 on the internet was illegal, it doesn't follow that it's illegal to be a pedophile on the internet! Those are two completely different issues!

A pedophile is a person who is attracted to pre-pubescent children, and it's in no way illegal for them to be on the internet, unless they actually do something illegal on the internet!



The law you quoted? About sexualized pictures of children? In no way can that be used to prosecute someone for being attracted to anyone.

Believe me, no one can be prosecuted for being attracted to someone. The very idea is silly. How would you know? How would you prove it? Why would it matter to anyone?
"You could have a million pictures if a 14 year old that you were attracted to, and no one could do anything about it unless those pictures were actually illegal pictures - pornographic or sexualized pictures."

Thats demonstrably not true. There was a couple who were charged with making lewd images when they sent their photos of their infant child to be processed. Do a google.

"A pedophile is a person who is attracted to pre-pubescent children, and it's in no way illegal for them to be on the internet, unless they actually do something illegal on the internet!"

I agree but its the state which decides what is illegal and in the UK the definition of illegal with regards to pedophilia is incredibly broad.
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 12:46 PM   #169
Emet
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,295
Originally Posted by simper View Post
There was a couple who were charged with making lewd images when they sent their photos of their infant child to be processed. Do a google.
It's not helpful to make a claim and advise others to 'do a google'.

If you make a claim, it's really best to present it and provide a link. Then others can evaluate it.

Just sayin'.
Emet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 12:55 PM   #170
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Emet View Post
It's not helpful to make a claim and advise others to 'do a google'.

If you make a claim, it's really best to present it and provide a link. Then others can evaluate it.

Just sayin'.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...sBdc4iSJdL_66w

This is not the story I was thinking of but it seems to be one of many. Do a google.
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 12:58 PM   #171
AmandaM
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by simper View Post
"You could have a million pictures if a 14 year old that you were attracted to, and no one could do anything about it unless those pictures were actually illegal pictures - pornographic or sexualized pictures."
Quote:
Thats demonstrably not true. There was a couple who were charged with making lewd images when they sent their photos of their infant child to be processed. Do a google.

New York:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2..._for_child.php
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-co...ory?id=8624533

Pennsylvania:
http://www.pittsburghcriminaldefense...nography.shtml

Arizona:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/200...rnography.html

Utah:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_lif...ts-arrest.html

Texas:
http://htarchive.org/showthread.php?t=2011475 (not the actual story, but a comment thread with the full text of the story)

etc.


(sorry -- I see others have already done their google.)

Last edited by AmandaM; 21st April 2011 at 12:59 PM.
AmandaM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 01:02 PM   #172
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,976
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
You could have a million pictures if a 14 year old that you were attracted to, and no one could do anything about it unless those pictures were actually illegal pictures - pornographic or sexualized pictures.
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Thats demonstrably not true. There was a couple who were charged with making lewd images when they sent their photos of their infant child to be processed. Do a google.
But I specifically mention that they not be pornographic or sexualized, i.e. lewd. That wasn't part of your original claim, either.

Honestly, it's almost as if you're being obtuse on purpose.

"Driving a car is illegal!"

"No, it's not. Anything to back up your claim?"

"Yeah, the law says if you drink and drive a car, you can go to jail!"

"Yes, we know. But that wasn't your claim. You claimed that driving a car in itself is illegal!"

"Yes, it is! Just look here, here's an article about a guy who drove a car while drunk, and he was sent to jail!"

"....."

Ryokan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 01:03 PM   #173
Emet
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,295
Originally Posted by simper View Post
And by clicking on the embedded link:

Quote:
But charges were later dropped because police determined Diaz-Palomino did not assault the baby. Instead, the couple was giving the boy a bath and after the bath, while the baby was still wet and laughing and the father happily kissed the infantís body, Vasquez documented the scene as family memorabilia.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39899002...and_parenting/

Quote:
This is not the story I was thinking of but it seems to be one of many. Do a google.
I know how to search the Interwebs. Do you understand that for any claim to be evaluated seriously, the claimant should provide the evidence?

Your claim--your burden of proof.
Emet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 01:05 PM   #174
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,976
AmandaM, you're arguing against something that no one ever said.

The claim is, again, that being attracted to someone underage and having pictures of them is illegal in and of itself! No one specified naked pictures, and I specifically excluded that.
Ryokan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 01:09 PM   #175
AmandaM
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
AmandaM, you're arguing against something that no one ever said.

The claim is, again, that being attracted to someone underage and having pictures of them is illegal in and of itself! No one specified naked pictures, and I specifically excluded that.
I'm not actually arguing -- I was just supplying links for what sniper was referring to. Sorry if that came across wrong.
AmandaM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 01:13 PM   #176
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
But I specifically mention that they not be pornographic or sexualized, i.e. lewd. That wasn't part of your original claim, either.

Honestly, it's almost as if you're being obtuse on purpose.

"Driving a car is illegal!"

"No, it's not. Anything to back up your claim?"

"Yeah, the law says if you drink and drive a car, you can go to jail!"

"Yes, we know. But that wasn't your claim. You claimed that driving a car in itself is illegal!"

"Yes, it is! Just look here, here's an article about a guy who drove a car while drunk, and he was sent to jail!"

"....."

ffs the pictures were not lewd or sexual( although if you were of a particular mindset you might disagree). Google and read the articles.
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 01:19 PM   #177
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Emet View Post
And by clicking on the embedded link:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39899002...and_parenting/



I know how to search the Interwebs. Do you understand that for any claim to be evaluated seriously, the claimant should provide the evidence?

Your claim--your burden of proof.
I apologise, Im working and was too lazy to do the research.
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 01:27 PM   #178
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,976
Originally Posted by simper View Post
ffs the pictures were not lewd or sexual( although if you were of a particular mindset you might disagree). Google and read the articles.
But being naked, they could be considered lewd by some people. Your claim was that seeing any picture of someone underage on the internet could get you sent to jail.

And no, I won't google for you. I'm done with this, really. Nothing is penetrating.

A caution to all Brits reading this, though. Don't click the link at the bottom of this post. According to simper, it could get you sent to jail.

http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&xh...w=1440&bih=740
Ryokan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 01:41 PM   #179
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
But being naked, they could be considered lewd by some people. Your claim was that seeing any picture of someone underage on the internet could get you sent to jail.

And no, I won't google for you. I'm done with this, really. Nothing is penetrating.

A caution to all Brits reading this, though. Don't click the link at the bottom of this post. According to simper, it could get you sent to jail.

http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&xh...w=1440&bih=740
"Your claim was that seeing any picture of someone underage on the internet could get you sent to jail."

That is absolute and complete BS and Im fairly sure you know it.
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 01:52 PM   #180
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,976
Originally Posted by simper View Post
"Your claim was that seeing any picture of someone underage on the internet could get you sent to jail."

That is absolute and complete BS and Im fairly sure you know it.
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for looking at images of under 16 year olds on the internet.
You were saying?
Ryokan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 01:53 PM   #181
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by simper View Post
"Your claim was that seeing any picture of someone underage on the internet could get you sent to jail."

That is absolute and complete BS and Im fairly sure you know it.
No, that was pretty much your claim. You made a universal statement with no qualifiers. If you don't want your claims to be taken as universal statements, don't phrase them that way.
tesscaline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 02:07 PM   #182
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
You were saying?
"Your claim was that seeing any picture of someone underage on the internet could get you sent to jail."

My quote "Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for looking at images of under 16 year olds on the internet."

You seem to have changed the wording of my post somewhat.

Last edited by simper; 21st April 2011 at 02:09 PM.
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 02:11 PM   #183
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,976
Originally Posted by simper View Post
"Your claim was that seeing any picture of someone underage on the internet could get you sent to jail."

My quote "Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for looking at images of under 16 year olds on the internet."

You seem to have changed the wording of my post somewhat.
How are the two any different?
Ryokan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 02:40 PM   #184
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
How are the two any different?
My post empasises the qualifier that "its possible."

Your post that "Your claim was that seeing any picture of someone underage on the internet could get you sent to jail." does not equate to my post.

EDIT that said I do accept tesscalines critisism, I should have been more precise in my original wording.

Last edited by simper; 21st April 2011 at 02:45 PM. Reason: stupidity
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 02:44 PM   #185
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,976
Originally Posted by simper View Post
My post empasises the qualifier that "its possible."

Your post that "Your claim was that seeing any picture of someone underage on the internet could get you sent to jail." does not equate to my post.
What do you think the word 'could' means?

Last edited by Ryokan; 21st April 2011 at 02:46 PM.
Ryokan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 03:02 PM   #186
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
What do you think the word 'could' means?
Could" is used to express possibility or past ability as well as to make suggestions and requests. "Could" is also commonly used in conditional sentences as the conditional form of "can."

"Your claim was that seeing any picture of someone underage on the internet could get you sent to jail."

"Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for looking at images of under 16 year olds on the internet."

Surely you can admit there is a difference in emphasis in these 2 statements?
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 03:11 PM   #187
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,976
Originally Posted by simper View Post
"Your claim was that seeing any picture of someone underage on the internet could get you sent to jail."

"Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for looking at images of under 16 year olds on the internet."

Surely you can admit there is a difference in emphasis in these 2 statements?
Slightly, but such a small difference that the meaning is still the same. I never figured you for someone quibbling over semantic details, though, seeing as you don't exactly care for semantic correctness in other terms you insist on using.

But if you insist, I'll withdraw the claim and rather use your wording.

A caution to all Brits reading this. Don't click the link at the bottom of this post. According to simper, it's possible that it will get you convicted as a pedophile.

http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&xh...w=1440&bih=740

Last edited by Ryokan; 21st April 2011 at 03:13 PM.
Ryokan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 04:16 PM   #188
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,812
Wow. Such stellar word games going on here.

Did you know that in America, you can go to jail just because your name is John Smith? How crazy is that!?!?

(Because if your name is John Smith, and you have an ID that says your name is Tom Johnson, then that would be a fake ID, and you'll go to jail)
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 05:20 PM   #189
Uncle Otto
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I've got no problem with exposing pedophiles online so long as they are actual, convicted pedophiles. Don't want the whole world to know that you like to molest little kids? Well, not molesting little kids would be a good start.
See that's the problem-----if you get a ticket in some places for pissing in public while intoxicated, you can be put into the offender registry as a "sex offender", and the listing doesn't specify what the original offense was. But it can screw up your life big time from then onward.

But as one or two others have mentioned----why restrict it to sex offenses? Why not have public registries for all offenders? Including drunk drivers or other traffic offenses? Shoplifting maybe? Or how about pharmacists selling prescription drugs out the back door? Maybe if your neighbor's kid stole a car once? Should a convicted child murderer be on the list even though he/she didn't sexually abuse any child?

Oh here's a good one-------how about tax cheaters? I'd sure like to know who in my neighborhood isn't paying their fair share of our national burden.

Here's the problem with these kinds of lists------they are knee jerk emotional and therefore political reactions to especially heinous crimes that make the media attention. They are never rationally thought out solutions to any situation. And they encourage vigilantism---never a good solution to anything.
Uncle Otto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 05:28 PM   #190
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,370
Originally Posted by simper View Post
This is not the story I was thinking of but it seems to be one of many. Do a google.
This in response to someone telling you that "do a google" isn't advisable here ?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 05:34 PM   #191
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,370
Originally Posted by simper View Post
"Your claim was that seeing any picture of someone underage on the internet could get you sent to jail."

My quote "Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for looking at images of under 16 year olds on the internet."

You seem to have changed the wording of my post somewhat.
We can all read your post, by the way. The two are equivalent.

Quote:
Could" is used to express possibility or past ability as well as to make suggestions and requests. "
Wiggle, wiggle.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 05:36 PM   #192
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,651
Warning, do not open this:




BWAHAHAHAHA NOW YOU'RE GOING TO JAIL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... oh crap... I guess I'm going to jail too, right?
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 05:36 PM   #193
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,370
Originally Posted by Uncle Otto View Post
See that's the problem-----if you get a ticket in some places for pissing in public while intoxicated, you can be put into the offender registry as a "sex offender", and the listing doesn't specify what the original offense was. But it can screw up your life big time from then onward.

But as one or two others have mentioned----why restrict it to sex offenses? Why not have public registries for all offenders? Including drunk drivers or other traffic offenses? Shoplifting maybe? Or how about pharmacists selling prescription drugs out the back door? Maybe if your neighbor's kid stole a car once? Should a convicted child murderer be on the list even though he/she didn't sexually abuse any child?

Oh here's a good one-------how about tax cheaters? I'd sure like to know who in my neighborhood isn't paying their fair share of our national burden.

Here's the problem with these kinds of lists------they are knee jerk emotional and therefore political reactions to especially heinous crimes that make the media attention. They are never rationally thought out solutions to any situation. And they encourage vigilantism---never a good solution to anything.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2011, 05:06 AM   #194
JFrankA
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,054
Originally Posted by simper View Post
So if we could prove that someone was a pedophile without corroborating evidence should we prosecute them?
If I understand your question correctly, then no.

If you prosecute someone simply because they feel something, but never act on it, then we might as well prosecute anyone who says "I'm going to kill my boss" (ex-spouse, parents, sibling, stranger, co-worker, etc).

The point being is that there is no crime to being sexually attracted to children. There is a crime in actually molesting a child. And, by the way, one doesn't have to be a pedophile to molest a child.

The thought/feeling is not a crime. Can't be. The act is. Now, IMHO, the people who equate pedophile with child molester are the people who are trying to make it so that the act of owning a comic book or writing a story with fictional children in sexual situations is exactly the same as molesting an actual child; and there are people who feel that having an innocent nude picture of a child is exactly the same as molesting a child, but I disagree strongly with this line of thought.

To me, that makes the crime of actually molesting an actual child less important, and controlling how someone thinks more important.
JFrankA is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2011, 05:08 AM   #195
JFrankA
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,054
Originally Posted by Uncle Otto View Post
See that's the problem-----if you get a ticket in some places for pissing in public while intoxicated, you can be put into the offender registry as a "sex offender", and the listing doesn't specify what the original offense was. But it can screw up your life big time from then onward.

But as one or two others have mentioned----why restrict it to sex offenses? Why not have public registries for all offenders? Including drunk drivers or other traffic offenses? Shoplifting maybe? Or how about pharmacists selling prescription drugs out the back door? Maybe if your neighbor's kid stole a car once? Should a convicted child murderer be on the list even though he/she didn't sexually abuse any child?

Oh here's a good one-------how about tax cheaters? I'd sure like to know who in my neighborhood isn't paying their fair share of our national burden.

Here's the problem with these kinds of lists------they are knee jerk emotional and therefore political reactions to especially heinous crimes that make the media attention. They are never rationally thought out solutions to any situation. And they encourage vigilantism---never a good solution to anything.
JFrankA is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2011, 05:53 PM   #196
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
Slightly, but such a small difference that the meaning is still the same. I never figured you for someone quibbling over semantic details, though, seeing as you don't exactly care for semantic correctness in other terms you insist on using.

But if you insist, I'll withdraw the claim and rather use your wording.

A caution to all Brits reading this. Don't click the link at the bottom of this post. According to simper, it's possible that it will get you convicted as a pedophile.

http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&xh...w=1440&bih=740
Upon sober reflection I think you are right and my wording was wrong. My point was that almost any picture of a child under the age of 16 can potentially see you prosecuted for pedophilia.

"You could have a million pictures if a 14 year old that you were attracted to, and no one could do anything about it unless those pictures were actually illegal pictures - pornographic or sexualized pictures."

Again the law is so vague in the UK that its down to the discretion of the law enforcement officers as to whether you are prosecuted. People have been prosecuted(although I dont think they were convicted) for taking naked pictures of their child playing in the bath.
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2013, 07:19 AM   #197
tyciol
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Jekyll's Guest View Post
If a past pedophile moved in to my neighborhood I'd want to drive him out with fire and dogs or else I couldn't sleep at night worrying about my kid.
I could understand being worried say, during work when you are not in the house with your kid, but I'm confused why someone would be worried at night when the house is locked up and everyone is in their beds. Nothing is presumably going to happen during such a time short of breaking and entering, which I doubt is common for such purposes (theft is a more reasonable concern).
tyciol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.