|
Quote:
|
OMG DEY SHULD BE KILLD! PREZ BUSH WULL SAVE US!
|
Quote:
Sorry you are nuts on this one. The gulf between reading about something and doing it is very wide. I honestly did not know that there was nay restriction at all on the written word. |
i didn't know what the stories were about. reading the threads now i can see it involved kids. i think that is not a good thing to be writing about and involving sex with, period. if those are the stories that are on that site, they were basically flirting with getting owned by the gov. i don't support anyone who involves children in sex.
|
Quote:
There are no actual children being harmed when you write a story about it. It's PIXELS. What's being prosecuted here is not actual sex with a child, it's the IDEA of sex with a child. The THOUGHT of it. This is thought-crime, and there is no such thing as thought-crime in a free society. Prosecuting people for thought crimes of ANY kind puts you on a short and slippery slope toward absolute govt. tyranny. |
Quote:
god talks to him directly i believe we are pretty safe now :) |
Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups. Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949
I really don't understand what's going thru your goddam heads. You truly don't understand how short a step a step it is from outlawing unpopular stories about sex to outlawing stories that disrespect Gawd Almighty or that are disrespectful of our govt.? You WANT to become like the Muslim theocrats? That's how you want to live? The only speech that's illegal is yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. I don't want ANY morality police ANYWHERE deciding with the authority of the federal govt. I pay for behind him deciding what's acceptable for me to read and what's not. I don't NEED anyone deciding something is too dangerous or too immoral for my or anyone else's consumption. Why do you people think you need a daddy in the white house so badly to tell us the difference between right and wrong? What the fuck is wrong with you? |
Quote:
Ever heard of Louis Paul Boon? He was a fairly famous Flemmish author who wrote a novel called "Mieke Maaike's Obscene Jeugd" (Mieke Maaike's obscene childhood), which in extremely explicit detail describes the sexual exploits of a very young girl (it starts when she's about 10 years old). It even goes so far as to describe very underage girls having sex with animals - and enjoying it. Now, this particular novel, originally published in the early seventies, has sold many thousands of copies, and is to this day performed in plays. Quite obviously, it is not just read by paedophiles. In fact, it is considered by many to be - more or less - important literature. Even fiction solely consisting of explicit underage sex acts doesn't necessarily cater to paedophiles, so your argument simply doesn't work. |
I'm more concerned with when actual children are being harmed, abused, used, molested, etc. Focus on banning the stuff that really harms children, I couldn't care less what other people write about. I have the choice not to read it (and so do all of you).
It looks to me as though the FBI is wasting their time and resources chasing down fantasies rather than focusing on nailing those invlolved in the reality of child porn and other obscene acts. Yes the stories (judging by the titles quoted here and some of the comments) are obviously sick and disturbing, but so are the words in a lot of other stories and books and written pieces, all of it fantasy, fiction. I would rather live in a world with NO real child porn at all, where people can write whatever they feel like writing without being persecuted for it. |
their forum is still up - http://www.red-rose-stories.com/forum/
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Look at those titles I quoted... a collection of stories about abused and raped babies and children. Who, other than pedos would read one of, or the collection of, these stories? How 'bout any of these stories, did you read any of them? Nice try, but YOUR argument doesn't work for me. |
Quote:
Nail the fuckers who are writing and reading this sick crap, or at least track them, as most of them have probably already nailed an innocent child. Do you not agree that the people who read this shit have a higher probability of actually committing the crime? They are reading these stories because it gets them off, they are already predisposed to wanting to fuck kids... these stories are just fanning the flame or providing whack off material until they can find another kid to fuck. With every ounce of my being, I believe that the only people who would read or write these stories are full blown pedos or closet pedos, who will begin with the fantasy of reading these fucked up stories. Why fuel their fire. If one of these stories inspires just one of these closet pedos to go out and fuck a child, don't you think that's one too many? |
Quote:
you people are witch burners. |
The speech you have to protect is the speech that offends you the most. Im against cp but going after a site for stories thats thought crimes and thats a very slippery slope you dont want to go down. I think this was the charge to get in the door ,it will be interesting if other charges come up.
|
Quote:
Okay, you got me, I'm just a surfer. :eatme |
Quote:
Because you think people who read stories or look at pictures go and do what the pictures or story was about in real life. It sounds ridiculous. And its no different than people that burned Alice Cooper records in the 60s. Most of the time i am convinced the people who scream the loudest in these threads have the most to hide. Amazing. |
Quote:
Bringing up a single book as an example does in fact negate your argument, because it shows that there is no clear line between "obscene porn stories" and literature. Quote:
|
Quote:
Pedos are NOT wired like most people. MOST people don't go out and act on what they see or read, but pedos are different. Quote:
|
Quote:
As for how pedos are "wired" - what exactly would you know about that? I am fairly certain that you are not a psychiatrist specialized in the subject, but rather an ignoramus speculating based on an unholy combination of media hype, "common sense", unbalanced reporting and outrage at the subject matter, perhaps combined with some small, incoherent pieces of popular science ripped out of their appropriate context. |
Quote:
I'm not a "good searcher" either. Yep, I googled it but really didn't want to spend the time weeding through it to defend myself against a pro-pedo. And NO, I'm not okay with consenting 8 year olds, you fucking moron. Go back and read it again, you and your high falootin' Flemmish lit brain didn't comprehend my simple English. |
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/goodguy_badge.html You book Burners scare me and thats about all i have to say. Note: no name calling. You should try it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Don't fucking insinuate that I'm a pedo because I'm passionate about the topic. It's called "Mother's rage." |
Quote:
Now, you don't think literature containing such sex acts is ok? In that case, do you believe literature containing it should be banned? |
Quote:
Secondly, inferring that paedophiles go out and rape from the fact that they are attracted to children is about as scientifically sound as inferring that they rob grocery stores from the fact that they eat food. And yes, this time I did call you a retard. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Since you're trying to pick me apart, let me clarify my googling. Yes, there were many results, but not many in English. So I didn't find many English results and didn't feel like weeding through all the foreign results to find pertinent info. If it's a simple reference necessary to bring the plot together, it is much different than a book based soley on molesting children. A book referencing a sex act is less likely to have a pedo following than a site full of baby and child rape stories. Do you really not see my point here? |
Quote:
Wow, you cut me deep with that well thought out, deep remark. Who the fuck are you? |
Quote:
At the same time, however, there is not a single doubt about it that that very same book has been masturbated to by a very large amount of people. (Many of whom - I would venture to say - aren't paedophiles at all.) The point is that it isn't possible to draw a clear line, and that outlawing certain types of fiction will always, in the end, harm literature and art, and thereby the most fundamental elements of free speech. Furthermore I don't really see your point when you attack content based on the people reading or watching it. Isn't the problem in that more one of aesthetics and association than of ethics? After all, no matter how repulsive fiction is, it doesn't physically hurt anyone, and association with the wrong people may make something look bad, but whether it actually is bad depends on the thing itself. And, I would say, whether something actually is bad depends on its physical causes and effects, not on the aesthetic reaction it causes in us. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Listen: Just because YOU can't tell the difference between fiction and reality; Just because YOU can't read a story where someone gets killed or raped without going out and raping and killing someone: Doesn't give you the right to censor MY reading, because I CAN tell the difference fiction and reality, I CAN enjoy Nabokov without going out and fucking a 13 yr old, and I CAN enjoy 'Taxi Driver' without becoming a preteen pimp or killing Martin Scorcese. The thing that I most devoutly wish is that all you total fucking idiots just REALIZED that you were total fucking idiots and left the rest of us alone. Unfortunately, you're too dumb to know you're dumb, so we're stuck having to listen to you and even worse, you tend to vote in politicians who think like you so we're stuck with George Bush and John Ashcroft from time to time. Just go away. |
Quote:
'The Goodguy BadgeGood Guy Badges are what we call the little shallow things people intentionally do to appear 'good' (because they know otherwise)' and this is exactly what I think about whenever I see these fucking pornographers parading their shallow-ass ridiculous moral majority 'values' on a PORN board. 'Look at ME, look at ME, I'm virtuous and holy and NOT a pervert, no no NOT ME!!!' Pay no attention to the man behind the mirror eh? |
Quote:
LOL open some threads, they do have their own "Lensman" :1orglaugh |
I'm having a hard time believing I'm being bashed because I think it's wrong to read or write about sexually abusing children.
Hypothetical situation. Put your child or a child dear to your heart in this situation. You're at a neighbor's/friend's/family member's house and on the way to the bathroom, you pass by his computer and notice in big letters, a title reading "I Fucked A 4 Year Old In The Ass" and a story beneath it. Will you feel comfortable having your young daughter around this man? What if he offers to watch her while you go run some errands? What if he has a child and your daughter wants to go to their house to play? I'm willing to bet that none of you would ever allow your child to be around this man again, especially unsupervised. Why is that? Perhaps because if he enjoys reading about sexually abusing children, it most likely arouses him, therefore he poses a threat to your child. Seriously, put yourself in that situation and answer truthfully. Go ahead and bash me some more... I'll be back tomorrow. |
Quote:
You're being bashed because you think reading and writing should be banned. You're being bashed because you are against free speech. You're being bashed because most of your arguments are extremely simplistic, and are based more on gut feelings than on rationality. There are many people I wouldn't want my children around, especially unsupervised, including alcoholics, religious fanatics, cult members, conspiracy theorists, people with unhealthy fascinations for chainsaws, psychotics, most bums, etc. And you are aware, I hope, that a vast majority of people wouldn't allow their children anywhere near you if they were aware of you being a pornographer. So, clearly, the simple fact that you don't want your children around certain people doesn't mean much at all. The point is that once you start banning things that occur only between consenting adults, you are taking away one of the most fundamental parts of freedom there are. And reading and writing stories such as these are things that, ironically, involve just consenting adults. No matter how disgusting they may be, stories are stories, nothing more. Apart from that, I am quite certain that people who sexually enjoy stories involving minors aren't actually paedophiles. I know plenty of women who enjoy roleplaying such things as being raped, being a slave or being tortured, read stories involving extremely explicit, degrading and promiscuous sex acts, or even like reading lolicon manga. Nevertheless, most of them are quite opposed to actually being raped, treasure their freedom, in no way long to be tortured, are not planning on being gangbanged by a group of well-hung black men while their husband is out of town, and most certainly aren't into little girls, sexually. There is a big gap between fantasy and reality, and most people are (or should be) able to fully see that gap. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
She was reduced to personal insults and name calling. Referring to "people in general" as witch hunters, and calling someone "dumbass", is a big difference. She began the name calling, no one else. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123