Quote: ContainsNuts @ January 16, 2008, 3:23 PMThere is something very wrong with the mind to look at these images. That is what I meant.
Yeah, but what we meant was to disagree with you. By our 'right-thinking' standards, yeah, it's wrong, but it's no more "wrong with the mind" than getting turned on by a bit of good old fashioned sadomasochism is.
Quote: Aaron @ January 16, 2008, 3:37 PMYeah, but what we meant was to disagree with you. By our 'right-thinking' standards, yeah, it's wrong, but it's no more "wrong with the mind" than getting turned on by a bit of good old fashioned sadomasochism is.
I think its more complex than that. And in this case you can see a path.
And anyway its not been proven that he was in any way turned on by the images.
Langham was convicted in a court of law & served time for his offence. GUILTY!!!! His justifications for his crime are no different to that of any criminal.
"It was my childhood" blah fooking blah!!!
So if Langham was writing a storyline on a murderer is he going to need to see footage of one actually taken place? NO!!!!!!!!
At the end of the day, those children were abused & taped, to supply demand for all those attracted to children. I agree that sometimes sexual urges & what turns you on can't be helped. However acting on them in any way most certainly can.
Our society does not accept paedophilia. Even are most hardened criminals are disgusted by it. These children have no chance to fight back. They are small & vulnerable. They are innocent & that is what turns a paedophile on.
Now I don’t know if any of you watched Panorama the other week but this was all about internet paedophiles. Sometimes they pretend to be a girl. One guy turned up to meet a 13 year old armed with underwear lubrication & condoms. Now these guys who get personal are a step up from Langham but they are all on the same page.
As for the "I was abused & used those images as a way of coming to terms with the situation".
BOLLOX!!!!!!
I have a friend who was a victim of rape. The last thing in the world she would ever want to do is watch REAL images of another girl going through the same thing. She can not even watch a drama scene on it.
I don’t want to hear Langhams excuses & whining. He committed a fooking crime. He knew he was committing it the moment he opened it up. He has now paid for it. Whether his term was long enough, well we will have to put that to the real victims of child abuse. Let’s go & ask one. After all there is a child out there right now going through something despicable in order to satisfy the lust of these perverts.
They are going through it not just for the sexual gratification of the abuser, but for the sexual gratification of the viewer.
Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 2:44 PMYou 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.
I don't really want to get involved in this debate as I can already hear Baumski gassing up his pickup
truck 
but pornographic images of children are mostly exchanged via the internet rather than the web. When sites appear they are quickly shut down by police. The content these sites peddle while they are up is not created by them but leeched from users, so the content is actually generated by paedophiles themselves and only ever posted to obtain material in exchange. Langham therefore neither contributed to nor reduced the number of paedophilic images in the public domain by his actions.
I'm sorry but one abused victim doesn't represent all abused victims. People deal with things in different ways and unless you know this person and have suffered his abuse passing judgement is difficult. I do agree about the wrongness of the crime and the effect it has on the child victims. I've never said anything to oppose that.
All I've said is don't completely disregard the other story if you want to work out how we can stop these things happening in the future.
He was convicted of DOWNLOADING indecent images of porn.
15 counts of.
And he's been PUNISHED for it in JAIL.
(Hee. That's fun.)
What I found funny is that he (assuming he's telling the truth) had to watch more child porn at the police station than he ever did at home. So why is one illegal and morally reprehensible, but the other absolutely fine.
Weird.
That he has Zooo!
Oh & 
to the bottom bit.
Quote: zooo @ January 16, 2008, 4:06 PMAnd he's been PUNISHED for it in JAIL.
(Hee. That's fun.)
What I found funny is that he (assuming he's telling the truth) had to watch more child porn at the police station than he ever did at home. So why is one illegal and morally reprehensible, but the other absolutely fine.
Weird.
Got, got, got, got, got, need, got, got, got, need...
How did the police track him down, that's what I wanna know. It's kinda worrying. I hope the police only use this method for child porn and not other stuff, like downloading music or videos and shit..
No, they tend to track you down via chat rooms and trap sites... then it's a simple task of tracing your IP address.
Look out of your window!
They are coming for you now EMS!
Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 2:44 PMYou 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.(1)
Yet again another misunderstanding of the Human Rights Act. It would have no effect.(2)
Not all taboos are bad, just look at the court case the other day where a guy married his sister. (3)
Well who's values should I be judging them by
(4)
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? (5)
>_< 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. (6)
Well lock him up then. Jesus!
1) "Why don't I go talk to the NSPCC"?! I'm making an argument and I think you're far too het up. None of your points add up. I want you to quantify for me how much Langham has increased the chances of someone else suffering similar abuse by looking at a free image in the public domain. A great deal? A little bit? You can't, I can't, nobody can, which is my point: it's a tricky subject. I'm drawing no conclusions other than this, and questioning your original opinion that people who look at such images are treated 'too leniently'. Yes, it's a crime, but the punishment has to fit the crime and so the weight of the crime has to weighed. You seem to overestimate the gravity of the crime IMO if you think Langham's sentence was lenient.
2)I did mention human rights, but I made no mention of the Human Rights Act. Ridiculous to say I did, let alone to assert I misunderstand it to boot.
3)Your opinion of this taboo is that is "not bad". Really, your arguments are very simplistic. Either something is good or it is bad with you! Besides, your observation, however valid, is entirely irrelevant, as my point was that taboos are often difficult to pin down, and are often based on an in-built reaction fostered by nature and society. They usually involve concepts at the root of what we consider 'wrong' and 'forbidden', and so people do not feel the need to analyse the behaviours of those that break taboos - why should they? 'It's just wrong.'
4)You are tying yourself in knots here with your inability to understand that other cultures have different belief systems, and that to judge them purely on the basis of what you judge to be 'right' or 'wrong', because of the society you live, in is ignorant. The irony, of course, is that a similar failure to understand other cultures (like ours) is partly why we get things like terrorism. We can see that the subjugation of women is clearly incorrect, but there are many other aspects to these cultures, and they have systems that operate wholly differently to ours. Saying that one system is better than another is like saying that an orange is better than a banana. You and I believe it's obvious our system is superior to many others, and we could give statistics to prove it, no doubt, but until these societies evolve it is careless to judge them by our standards. I'm not endorsing any of the shenanigans other countries get up to, but to dismiss another country's culture as worthless in one fell swoop is hopelessly crude.
5)By mere dint of your being born into this society everything you see or feel or do is made through the guiding lens of the society you are in. The same with me, with anyone. But I understand that I have preconceptions. Self-knowledge is what we have over the animals. I might find I've been brought up in a society that permits racism (which any does to an extent) but also be aware that this is illogical and not come out with any careless statements.
6)You are placing your own society's value-judgements on others again: "Would I ever consider carrying one out [an honour killing]. Of course not." Would a Muslim drink vodka? Of course not. What's your point? Different societies have different ways of behaving. But to dismiss them is outrageously arrogant.
7) Perhaps a little flippant, in this context. From Wikipedia:
The ICD-10 and DSM IV, which are standard medical diagnosis manuals, currently describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and *mental disorder* of adults or older youths, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. [emphasis added]
I'm bored of this now, it all seems transparent to me.
I think it all boils down to empathising with someone while finding their behaviour abhorrent - and realising that it's beyond your scope to judge them, as you will never know quite what circumstances surround them.
It is a sticky subject (NPI) but to mindlessly dismiss another person or culture is just wrong - it ignores the incredibly, incredibly complex issues that have been explored a bit even on here.
Apologies, by looking at the whole picture I may come across of supporting his actions which I'm not. I'm really against it.
I'll try a questionnaire, see how many yes's you get?
We want to prevent child porn?
As it stands we are not preventing people seeking child porn, just encouraging them not to get caught?
By trying to understand why people seek child porn we might see trends that can prevent new offenders?
Preventing people seeking child porn in the first place is better than only punishing people once they've got caught?
Quote: zooo @ January 16, 2008, 4:06 PMAnd he's been PUNISHED for it in JAIL.
(Hee. That's fun.)
What I found funny is that he (assuming he's telling the truth) had to watch more child porn at the police station than he ever did at home. So why is one illegal and morally reprehensible, but the other absolutely fine.
Weird.
And that's part of what I mean. We are dealing with complex moralistic issues, here, and I find it interesting to explore thema little.