Operation Ore II (97)

Thu 21 Aug 08, 8:21 PM
MrsTopman1
YT, 3 yrs
kisses_for_me wrote:

DanesWood wrote:
My whole point is not that you may have seen images on the net of these children, but that you may know some who have been abused, a point you missed entirely.

I did not miss it. I answered it clearly by saying the statiscal chances are so near zero as to be to all intents and purposes non-existent.
How many abused kids have pics on the net A couple of million? Out of how many kids in the world? Lets also not forget that definitions of abuse and kid may differ from person to person and country to country.

Can you expand on what your point is? Exploitation of children for adult sexual entertainment doesn't matter, so long as only a couple of million of them are being exploited?
Or is is that a couple of million children sexually exploited don't matter, so long as you're free to do what you want in your own home?
Or something else?
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
One toothpick in the mouth, looking cool. Two toothpicks, looking like a dickhead.

21 Aug 08, 8:33 PM
yoda_dog
UK(HP), 2 yrs
Damn it woman, why did you have to start another one!
"Aw, that's sweet...you think your opinion matters...."
-
"Heaven doesn't want me, and Hell thinks I'll take over..."

21 Aug 08, 8:38 PM
no_more_online
10 mths
yoda_dog wrote:
Damn it woman, why did you have to start another one!
Glad she did though because it gives you a chance to explain who you say was talking rubbish and why

Yoda_dog wrote:
Apart from a choice few, well thought out posts, those that have shouted the most on this thread appear to know the least.
Quite frankly, this scares the shit out of me.
I won't go into all the innuendo, half truths and downright lies that are here, but some people really need to read up on this subject before spouting off...or better still, go work in an area that deals with this sort of thing.

21 Aug 08, 8:47 PM
MrsTopman1
YT, 3 yrs
yoda_dog wrote:
Damn it woman, why did you have to start another one!
Hey, yoda, I've been busy and only got to the party late!
But I am seriously worried about people apparently dismissing child pornography as irrelevant. As in, you can't possibly stifle anyone else's freedoms, not matter what those freedoms might mean for others. So, anything goes, so long as it doesn't interfere with *your* freedoms to do whatever you like?
At least, that's the message that seemed to be coming across. I'm really hoping my reading of certain posts is wrong.
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
One toothpick in the mouth, looking cool. Two toothpicks, looking like a dickhead.

21 Aug 08, 9:01 PM
yoda_dog
UK(HP), 2 yrs

Auda_abu_Tayi wrote:

yoda_dog wrote:
Apart from a choice few, well thought out posts, those that have shouted the most on this thread appear to know the least.
Quite frankly, this scares the shit out of me.
I won't go into all the innuendo, half truths and downright lies that are here, but some people really need to read up on this subject before spouting off...or better still, go work in an area that deals with this sort of thing.
A vague "you're wrong" doesn't add anything to any argument.
What point specifically do you disagree with and what is your evidence?

It's vague for a number of reasons...
1. There are many posts on that thread that I disagree with, and I lost count.
2. I wasn't getting involved with the argument, actually trying to stay out of it.
3. There's no point in discussing, arguing with people that obviously have their minds made up. It's too emotive a subject.
I made my post as a point of view on what I had read.
However, if you're that bothered, bare with me and I'll find the posts, quote them, and get into it properly.

"Aw, that's sweet...you think your opinion matters...."
-
"Heaven doesn't want me, and Hell thinks I'll take over..."

21 Aug 08, 9:03 PM
CookieMonster
UK(RH), 3 yrs
Before people start hurling toys out of their prams at each other may I point out a couple of things.
Kiddie porn is as illeagal as kiddie sex. A lot of consensual BDSM is not illeagal and therin lies a distinction.
Also it doesn't matter how old Sam Fox was at the time it just matters was it legal at the time. Different countries draw the line at different ages, it doesn't matter where the line is drawn but that it is drawn.
Giving old bignose the benefit of the doubt he got busted on a technicality, he was gawping at KP. Whatever reason he came up with that is mitigation and doesn't nullify the offence just effects the level of punishment.
You also need a grasp on how excrusiatingly anul lawyers and the law can be.
Carry on.

21 Aug 08, 9:05 PM
CookieMonster
UK(RH), 3 yrs

yoda_dog wrote:
It's vague for a number of reasons...
1. There are many posts on that thread that I disagree with, and I lost count.
2. I wasn't getting involved with the argument, actually trying to stay out of it.
3. There's no point in discussing, arguing with people that obviously have their minds made up. It's too emotive a subject.
I made my post as a point of view on what I had read.
However, if you're that bothered, bare with me and I'll find the posts, quote them, and get into it properly.

I agree with the Jedi Mutt. In the thread a lot of people were being side tracked on side issues and taking it a bit personally. A fair bit was irrelevant.
But I did find it interesting and informative.

21 Aug 08, 9:09 PM
MrsTopman1
YT, 3 yrs
CookieMonster wrote:
<snip>
You also need a grasp on how excrusiatingly anul lawyers and the law can be.
Carry on.
What an odd thing to write. The ability of lawyers to be so "excrusiatingly anul" [sic] will most likely be the difference between conviction and acquittal for anyone charged under the CJIA.
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
One toothpick in the mouth, looking cool. Two toothpicks, looking like a dickhead.

21 Aug 08, 9:19 PM
yoda_dog
UK(HP), 2 yrs

spirifer wrote:

yoda_dog wrote:
Damn it woman, why did you have to start another one!
Hey, yoda, I've been busy and only got to the party late!
But I am seriously worried about people apparently dismissing child pornography as irrelevant. As in, you can't possibly stifle anyone else's freedoms, not matter what those freedoms might mean for others. So, anything goes, so long as it doesn't interfere with *your* freedoms to do whatever you like?
At least, that's the message that seemed to be coming across. I'm really hoping my reading of certain posts is wrong.
I'll send ya an invite next time (although I got there rather late myself)
That's how I read it too...but I'm hoping it was a misinterpretation
"Aw, that's sweet...you think your opinion matters...."
-
"Heaven doesn't want me, and Hell thinks I'll take over..."

21 Aug 08, 9:27 PM
CookieMonster
UK(RH), 3 yrs

spirifer wrote:

CookieMonster wrote:
<snip>
You also need a grasp on how excrusiatingly anul lawyers and the law can be.
Carry on.
What an odd thing to write. The ability of lawyers to be so "excrusiatingly anul" [sic] will most likely be the difference between conviction and acquittal for anyone charged under the CJIA.
Exactly, nothing to do with innocence or guilt in a lot of cases but the blood suckers skill and competence with his dark art.

Next page


	©1997-2008 Informed Consent