ajp29
Wednesday 16th January 2008 7:44pm [Edited]
5,486 posts
Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 1:24 PM
'accessory after the fact', though this is still not correct. Even so, as I say, looking at free content over the web is a nebulous issue. How can you define the damage Langham has caused by looking at these free images? Has he funded the making of such material? No. In this context the worst he has done is help reaffirm that there is a 'market' for it.
You serious? Economics works like this. If theres a demand for a good it will be supplied. Langham by looking at these pictures increases the demand for it and therefore encourages others to make more. The worst he has done is increased the chances of another child being abused. Why don't you go and ask the NSPCC or CEOP if your theory of no harm no foul works.
Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 1:24 PM
If we look at someone's human rights not to have someone look at footage of them being molested as a child, we are on very shaky ground indeed.
Yet again another misunderstanding of the Human Rights Act. It would have no effect.
Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 1:24 PM
I Of course it's wrong, but how much harm has it caused to any party, and what should the punishment be to fit the crime? Defining such problems is tricky, as our reactions are based largely on undefinable 'taboos', an intangible certainty that something is wrong and needs to be punished.
Not all taboos are bad, just look at the court case the other day where a guy married his sister.
Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 1:24 PM
It is closed-minded by definition, because you are judging them by a set of values created by our society.
Well who's values should I be judging them by 
Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 1:24 PM
You have to look at other cultures very carefully indeed and try to abandon many preconceptions.
Who says that my attitudes are based on preconceptions? I admit I haven't been to every place in the world to try and understand them but when are you allowed to?
Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 1:24 PM
Even keeping one's own preconceptions it is obvious to see that different ways of life are rich and complex and can't be shrugged off with a derisory 'they're worthless and wrong' attitude. A "valid/invalid" binary analysis is an argument set at an absurdly low resolution.
>_< I think you got the impression i'm some sort of biggot. Someone made the point of how certain things are acceptable in other cultures that aren't acceptable here. I was trying to say that I ignore that. Honour killings are acceptable some places, would I ever consider carrying one out. Of course not.
Quote: ContainsNuts @ January 16, 2008, 2:29 PM
A lot of people are saying that they are sympathetic to what child porn does to the kids but completely disregard the existence of mental illness - which Chris Langham clearly has.
Well lock him up then. Jesus! 
Unless you're John Major and you want a crazed Paedo being cared for in the community ROFL
Please don't threaten to kick me in the face though 
