Chris Langham Page 9

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 5:39 PM

I think its wrong to f**k children. That taboo wasn't hard to pin down. I like the idea we shouldn't judge based on our morals or preconceptions. How should we judge then? Sounds like liberal bull shit to me to be honest.(1)

I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous. If you can't see why its ridiculous then go and ask another scoiety.(2)

When did I ever do that. I said I ignore other societies in relation to a very small area of social politics namely the treatment of women and children. Unless you think I should seriously consider carrying out female circumcision and arranged marriages. I ignore them preciously because I know their views. I don't ignore things without learning about the subject first.(3)

The only arrogance here is yours. I take it that you approve all the acts of all the other societies in the world cos they don't know better and have to 'evolve' Thats arrogance. Bottle it, you can sell it to politicians (4)

View original

Gung-ho nonsense.
1)Saying "it's wrong to f**k children" isn't pinning it down at all. And Langham didn't, anyway. I didn't mean "don't judge" - it's inescapable. I meant "be aware that you are judging - and so think twice before coming out with black-and-white statements."
2)Assertion.
3)Not what you said at all.
4)Another assertion. "I approve of all the acts of other societies" do I? Rubbish, my opinion is more complex. I have been consistent and you have not. You can't herald 'ignoring' something in this manner as anything to be proud of. I never said that anything about countries "not knowing any better" or suggesting that they would "improve" by evolving. That's your arrogant assertion again, not mine. Don't put words in my mouth. You just don't 'get it', and I don't think you ever will, so argument seems thoroughly pointless.

You don't even make any arguments to back up any of your points. Call it "liberal bull shit" etc. If you must make such simple statements, do it in a taxi or at the pub, don't wind my poor fluffy liberal mind up with them!

You'll always get plaudits for beating the drum and saying you don't agree with innocent kids getting rogered. Well done, award yourself ten points, it adds nothing to the debate whatsoever.

Lawyers live in a world of finite rules and black-and-white. I don't. Noone does. However much they seem to want to.

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 6:20 PM

4)Another assertion. "I approve of all the acts of other societies" do I? Rubbish, my opinion is more complex. I have been consistent and you have not. You can't herald 'ignoring' something in this manner as anything to be proud of. I never said that anything about countries "not knowing any better" or suggesting that they would "improve" by evolving. That's your arrogant assertion again, not mine. Don't put words in my mouth.

View original

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 4:17 PM

but until these societies evolve it is careless to judge them by our standards.

View original

I wouldn't put words or anything else into your mouth believe me

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 6:20 PM

You don't even make any arguments to back up any of your points. Call it "liberal bull shit" etc. If you must make such simple statements, do it in a taxi or at the pub, don't wind my poor fluffy liberal mind up with them!

View original

I do make arguments you just don't listen to them. Or just dismiss them.

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 6:20 PM

You'll always get plaudits for beating the drum and saying you don't agree with innocent kids getting rogered. Well done, award yourself ten points, it adds nothing to the debate whatsoever.

View original

Its the whole point of the debate. This isn't some free speech issue. There are victims

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 6:20 PM

Lawyers live in a world of finite rules and black-and-white. I don't. Noone does. However much they seem to want to.

View original

>_< When you get personal you just undermine your argument

I also have a 42" plasma. And its black.

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 6:39 PM

>_< When you get personal you just undermine your argument

View original

That wasn't personal; it's just the way things are.

"but until these societies evolve it is careless to judge them by our standards."
I can see the implication, but I wasn't trying to say that we're superior. And if it came out that way - well, that is a feeling I have, but it comes back to the same point I've been making - we're inherently prejudiced, of course.

TBH I don't *really* think we disagree that much. I think a lot of it is cross-purposes. Anyway, for what we don't agree on I agree to disagree. If you'll agree to that. If you don't agree to that, I still agree to disagree with it.

*Proffers hand in act of reconciliation*

It has a HDMI connection

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 6:48 PM

TBH I don't *really* think we disagree that much. I think a lot of it is cross-purposes. Anyway, for what we don't agree on I agree to disagree. If you'll agree to that. If you don't agree to that, I still agree to disagree with it.

*Proffers hand in act of reconciliation*

View original

*shakes hand*

No hard feelings, I should see a doctor.

I think we mostly got bogged down in pedantic semantics. I'm happy to stop as we've both made our point.

Its HD ready

Quote: ContainsNuts @ January 16, 2008, 6:58 PM

Its HD ready

View original

Thats what the doc said to me about the Viagra he gave me for my no hard feelings probelm.

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 6:54 PM

*shakes hand*

No hard feelings, I should see a doctor.

View original

There's still GM in you Adam

Mostly for needing the doctor really.

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 5:39 PM

Well what did you mean as i took your words to mean that there would be a legal problem. This is what you said.

'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.'

View original

Nope, no mention of laws. Sounds more like morals than legality to me.

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 5:39 PM

Sounds like liberal bull shit to me to be honest.

View original

This, coming from a socialist?

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 5:39 PM

I don't ignore things without learning about the subject first.

View original

This, coming from a socialist?

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 5:39 PM

The only arrogance here is yours.

View original

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 5:39 PM

I take it that you approve all the acts of all the other societies in the world cos they don't know better and have to 'evolve' Thats arrogance.

View original

And again, coming from a socialist?

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 5:39 PM

I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous. If you can't see why its ridiculous then go and ask another scoiety.

View original

Blinding argument Adam, well done.

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 6:20 PM

Another assertion. "I approve of all the acts of other societies" do I? Rubbish, my opinion is more complex.

View original

Don't worry James, I was waiting for him to read such a ridiculous meaning into what one of the two of us had said. Inevitable, what with his twisted socialist logic.

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 6:39 PM

I wouldn't put words or anything else into your mouth believe me

View original

(I'm not laughing at your wit Adam, but your logic.)

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 6:48 PM

That wasn't personal; it's just the way things are.

View original

He has a law degree. Doesn't show, does it?

I talk to my Plasma.
I tell him that if it is naughty I will change him for an LCD.
I was torn between Plasma or LCD. But I like my Plasma. I have called him Bert & I love him A LOT.

PS Containsnuts. I bet my plasma is better than yours.

So would we be 'trying to understand' the guy next door who commits the same crime? And suggesting he's 'done his time' etc? I think not.
Chris Langham is a public figure who people admired and that doesnt sit easy with the idea of him as a 'nonce', hence the need by some to find an excuse for his actions.

Almost all child sex abusers were abused as children. Is that an excuse for continuing the cycle, whether in person or by viewing images? No.
Is there any evidence that abuse victims are helped to come to terms with their abuse by 'confronting' images in the way he claims? No.
Is there evidence that abuse victims can be turned on by these images?
Yes. Plenty. And generally they will avoid such things out of fear they may cross a line and become an abuser themselves. IT IS NOT A RISK THEY ARE WILLING TO TAKE. Langham's excuses just don't stand up.

The man has problems. Personally I don't care what the ins and outs of those are. But noone is going to be able to see him on screen and not be reminded of what he did. Giving him airtime is saying to others that his crime 'wasn't that bad'. That's insulting to abuse victims and a green light for others with an interest in viewing these kind of images. Sure he doesn't need to be eternally harassed, but the damage done to his career is/should be unrepairable, and that's his own fault.
It's not an issue of 'forgiveness', it's one of appropriateness and it is no longer appropriate for him to appear on tele. However 'funny' or 'talented' some people think he is.

I did have a lengthy a response here but I edited it. Instead heres a funny picture

I'd just like to say that I disagree with much of what Niteowl said. I for one would welcome him back on TV regularly - as long as it's entertaining, of course.

I'm not entirely sure about "trying to understand" the guy next door if he'd done it (TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy who lives next door to me had, but that's a different matter), but if he's done his time then yeah, sure.

Quote: Aaron @ January 17, 2008, 10:46 AM

I'd just like to say that I disagree with much of what Niteowl said. I for one would welcome him back on TV regularly - as long as it's entertaining, of course.

View original

I don't think that's ever going to happen. Clearly, as this thread shows, there's enough people out there not happy with his conduct to make any commissioner far too edgy about giving anything with him in it the greenlight.

Even if something with him in did make it to the screen - I not sure I would be able to watch it. Lets face it, no matter how good he was in whatever it was, this issue would always be in the back of one's mind whilst watching. It'd stop you paying full attention to whatever he was supposed to be doing on screen.