Defining child pornography
People are idiots.
No news flash there, but I'll try to be more specific now. People who make laws regulating child molesting and pedophaelia are idiots. First, I'd like to point out that I think all sorts of pedophiles should be tied by their balls to the back of a truck and dragged through a gravel road. Taking advantage of those who can't defend themselves is the lowest of the low. Fucking cowards.
Still, like all forms of deviation or freakish/stupid behaviour, psychologists (for which there should be some rope left after they're done with the pedophiles) define it as an illness. You know, junkies are sick, child molesters are sick, serial killers are also just the result of a bad case of the flu, I guess. I'd consider it an illness only from the fact that, like the flu, common cold and cancer, can cease to present symptoms if you apply a short dosage of lead, flying at high speed towards the pacient's head.
Still, it's an illness. Let's go with that. If it's an illness, there should be a cure. In this case, maybe some sort of psychiatric help, along with constant monitoring and shit. Hell, there may even be cases where, in order to tone down or even out of the will to not hurt anyone, he may turn to other representations of children in sexually compromising positions. You know, drawings. Although it's not exactly a normal person's cup of tea, it's pretty much harmless. No child was mollested and he gets his kicks. Kinda like the guys who fuck teddie bears. Freakish yeah. Harmful or illegal, nop.
Still, drawings of children in sexually compromising positions are ranked up there with actual photos or videos and deemed illegal in a wide variety of coutries. One could argument that, yes, it may lead them to search for more real representations of their depraved desires. Or even that it indicates they have a problem and should get professional help before they hurt anyone. But still, can one make an argument that they are hurting anyone? Would you really care if all pedophiles did was drawing and looking at drawings of kids? Was there really any harm being done?
I think people should pull their head out of their ass and start passing laws by the principle for which they were made, to protect people. Not to protect their own concept of what's decent (and most of the times, what's "christian" - ah democracy, what a load of crap). As long as anyone being hurt, I think people should be able to do as they please. Even if it is a form of drawn kiddie porn. Next thing you know, you'll wanna put people away because of their ideologies. Been done before.
Oh, and if you are one of there people and agree with me because you have tons of drawn kiddie porn and shit... well, you're a sick fuck. Just because one defends your right to do something, doesn't means he agrees...
Fucking pathetic drawn kiddie porn addicted losers.
No news flash there, but I'll try to be more specific now. People who make laws regulating child molesting and pedophaelia are idiots. First, I'd like to point out that I think all sorts of pedophiles should be tied by their balls to the back of a truck and dragged through a gravel road. Taking advantage of those who can't defend themselves is the lowest of the low. Fucking cowards.
Still, like all forms of deviation or freakish/stupid behaviour, psychologists (for which there should be some rope left after they're done with the pedophiles) define it as an illness. You know, junkies are sick, child molesters are sick, serial killers are also just the result of a bad case of the flu, I guess. I'd consider it an illness only from the fact that, like the flu, common cold and cancer, can cease to present symptoms if you apply a short dosage of lead, flying at high speed towards the pacient's head.
Still, it's an illness. Let's go with that. If it's an illness, there should be a cure. In this case, maybe some sort of psychiatric help, along with constant monitoring and shit. Hell, there may even be cases where, in order to tone down or even out of the will to not hurt anyone, he may turn to other representations of children in sexually compromising positions. You know, drawings. Although it's not exactly a normal person's cup of tea, it's pretty much harmless. No child was mollested and he gets his kicks. Kinda like the guys who fuck teddie bears. Freakish yeah. Harmful or illegal, nop.
Still, drawings of children in sexually compromising positions are ranked up there with actual photos or videos and deemed illegal in a wide variety of coutries. One could argument that, yes, it may lead them to search for more real representations of their depraved desires. Or even that it indicates they have a problem and should get professional help before they hurt anyone. But still, can one make an argument that they are hurting anyone? Would you really care if all pedophiles did was drawing and looking at drawings of kids? Was there really any harm being done?
I think people should pull their head out of their ass and start passing laws by the principle for which they were made, to protect people. Not to protect their own concept of what's decent (and most of the times, what's "christian" - ah democracy, what a load of crap). As long as anyone being hurt, I think people should be able to do as they please. Even if it is a form of drawn kiddie porn. Next thing you know, you'll wanna put people away because of their ideologies. Been done before.
Oh, and if you are one of there people and agree with me because you have tons of drawn kiddie porn and shit... well, you're a sick fuck. Just because one defends your right to do something, doesn't means he agrees...
Fucking pathetic drawn kiddie porn addicted losers.
posted by Cash at 12/03/2006 07:47:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home