Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/7/07 03:07 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 6/7/07 01:14 AM, Me-Patch wrote:

At 6/7/07 01:06 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

No, we forcibly Euthanize pedophiles.

And in doing so, the entire PURPOSE of the American judicial system is subverted.

I didn't say anything about testing people for pedophilia I said we put down anyone who is found through his actions to be a pedophile. Watching child porn is participating in pedohilia, hence the law has been broken, the qualifications met, and the needle prepared.

If you really think that watching a movie is on a par with sexual assault, then you need to re-evaluate your priorities.

If you think we should let pedophiles loose in our society I think you need to get your priorities straight. Pedophiles are incuribly sick and are a constant danger to others.

I'm not going to advocate Child Porn or anything of the sort, but really—the death penalty is simply an unfit punishment for that sort of crime. Jailtime / rehabilitation is a more suitable reprimand. We are no longer a barbaric, you-break-the-law-we-chop-off-your-arm society. Now we can evaluate the seriousness of a crime, and instead of ordering death to all criminals, petty or extreme, we assign punishment that matches the crime. I think that simply carrying the stigma of having been brought to jail as a pedophile, and the subsequent monitoring would be enough to stop a repeat crime. People avoid you for the rest of your life, and there's no way for you to erase that black mark.

Show me a reformed pedophile and I'll show you a sleeping dog waiting to be let back out to the rabbit hutch. You can't rehabilitate a disease, you have to cure it. So when you show me a cure for pedophilia then we got an angle. Until then we recognize the fact that these diseased people must be cast out from our society by any means necesary.

At 6/7/07 06:56 AM, Me-Patch wrote: If you think we should let pedophiles loose in our society I think you need to get your priorities straight. Pedophiles are incuribly sick and are a constant danger to others.

and you know this as a medical proffessional i assume?
obviously more drastic measures (i.e. long jail time) should be imposed on those who sexually assault children.

At 6/7/07 12:29 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 6/6/07 09:39 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Dead wrong. How do you think newgrounds makes money? Advertising. Everywhere on the web, advertising. Also, in some 3rd world countries, it is a small market. So, guess what? Watching child porn DOES create a market for it. But I have to ask, why are you defending people who watch little children get raped?

A) What kind of company would advertise on a KP website? And what kind of KP site would advertise anywhere?

Same kind of sites that we see on newgrounds, believe me, there is no moral highground on the internet.

B) I acknowledge the limited amount of paid-for KP that goes on, not only in the third-wold countried but in Europe and America, too. My post was mostly satirical, anyway.

C) Because watching a crime is not the same as doing a crime. Does the bystander who watches a person get shot hold the same responsibility as the shooter? Does someone who downloads videos of robberies hold the same responsibility as the robber? KP offenders do... why not the others? Reductum ad absurdum.

There is a HUGE difference between what you said. You can not control seeing a crime, you can control your obsession with masturbating to naked children being raped against their will. Duh. The others are in no way supporting the crime, while KP viewers are.

Also the old Voltaire quote: I disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to spread such lies.

This is a crime of thought, not of action.... can we really justify that? Should something be illegal just because it's disgusting? Should we put people who have bestiality on their computers, then, on the national Sex Offender Registry? What about BDSM? Or CBT? or Auto-erotic asphyxiation? or suspension? Hell what about the Nick Berg tape? Anyone who has that video is only encouraging more people to do it, so we should make it a felony to have...

It is NOT A CRIME OF THOUGHT! By going onto a child porn website, they are making an action to support kids getting raped. A crime of thought would be thinkong about kids getting raped, heck even viewing lolicon, but watching REAL CHILDREN getting raped is no "crime of thought'. BDSM CBT beastialty are all fetishes, and are consen or made up. Child porn, is not. I have no problem with someone who reads comics, even lolicon and shotacon comics, because that is not real. However, child porn is, watching it will just get the rapist to rape the little girl more, and encourage it. Do not even think you can compare child porn to made up fetishes.

If you can step away from the disgust you rightly feel about the subject matter, you'll easily see where I'm coming from.

I can step away from my disgust, and I do believe you think that the people who watch child porn are not hurting anybody. If that was the case I would agree with you. However, whenever you watch child porn, you do support it, enough to be a felony offense, and if we can save one child by sending child porn viewers to jail for a long time, so be it.

At 6/7/07 01:30 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/6/07 06:57 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Again, I'll suggest it:

We should chemically neuter them. They'll have less drive to do illicit sex acts...

and how the fuck does that work? (I really dont want to know but I want to know whats hes talking about)

Florida has a law for it:

"The new Florida statute authorizes a trial judge to sentence any defendant who is convicted of sexual battery to receive MPA [a sterilizing drug]. If the defendant is convicted of sexual battery and has a prior conviction for sexual battery, the trial court is required to impose a sentence of MPA administration. The administration of MPA is, however, contingent upon a determination by a court-appointed medical expert that the defendant is an appropriate candidate for the weekly drug injections. Likewise, the continued use of MPA is not required when a determination is made that it is not medically appropriate. The trial judge must specify the duration of the treatment that, in the discretion of the court, may be for life."

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/fra mes/252/spalfram.html

Granted, the source is an anti-compulsory sterilization source, but the point is that it is done.

At 6/5/07 08:12 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/5/07 08:10 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: or how about the onces who are the violent, the ones who have and those likely to reofened?

well the article is about non-violent, single offence child-porn viewers who have not molested anyone and do not present any immediate threat.

Giving a person a second chance is fair for the committer, but of course poses a threat to anyone who is unlucky enough to become they're next victim.

There are 3 ways that i think could solve this problem:

1 ) Pedophiles isolated from non pedophiles and placed in communities where the unwilling are not placed in harms way.

Pros:

- Pedophiles arn't harming anyone but other pedophiles, or no one at all
- No punishment is needed, so yipee for human rights activists

Cons:

- it's expensive to make your own pedophile communities, and most people would argue that it's idiotic to waste so much money on criminals

2)Execution of course

Pros:

- quick and cheep,

Cons:

- Fairly Cruel, un-redeeming, and does have the potential to upset the public

3) Castration as punishment for masculine based crimes, with optional combined testosterone inhibitors.

Pros:

- Quick, Fairly Cheep,
- Removes sexual desire without having to kill the indiviudal

Cons:

- unorthadox and unusual punishment, and may not be considered moral in the eyes of some people, would also stir emotions as well.

At 6/7/07 04:33 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Cons:

- it's expensive to make your own pedophile communities, and most people would argue that it's idiotic to waste so much money on criminals

and against that person's rights.

2)Execution of course

Cons:

- Fairly Cruel, un-redeeming, and does have the potential to upset the public

well i doubt many of the public would be upset but once again this would go against one's rights and the law.

3) Castration as punishment for masculine based crimes, with optional combined testosterone inhibitors.
- unorthadox and unusual punishment, and may not be considered moral in the eyes of some people, would also stir emotions as well.

if it weren't for the clause and individual rights than it may be a possibility.

it is not about defending pedophiles or, as it sometimes seen, their "right" to molest children but the fact that the law and civil rights cannot be bent simply on the grounds of public repulsion.

At 6/7/07 04:41 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/7/07 04:33 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Cons:

- it's expensive to make your own pedophile communities, and most people would argue that it's idiotic to waste so much money on criminals

and against that person's rights.

It's the authorities right to move a law breaker to a jail, it's the same as such as moving them into a community [for Say, a certain amount of time]

It's CLOSE to saying that jailing a criminal is against that persons rights, metaphorically, if a country or a town is a bed, and there's a law that states that you cant stab the bed, a person who stabs the bed should expect to be thrown off of the bed.

2)Execution of course

Cons:

- Fairly Cruel, un-redeeming, and does have the potential to upset the public

well i doubt many of the public would be upset but once again this would go against one's rights and the law.

See above post. A persons rights hasn't stopped the use of capital punishment before.

3) Castration as punishment for masculine based crimes, with optional combined testosterone inhibitors.
- unorthadox and unusual punishment, and may not be considered moral in the eyes of some people, would also stir emotions as well.

if it weren't for the clause and individual rights than it may be a possibility.

it is not about defending pedophiles or, as it sometimes seen, their "right" to molest children but the fact that the law and civil rights cannot be bent simply on the grounds of public repulsion.

Civil laws and rights are bent when people break the laws of they're nation, it's not a persons right to break the law.

Here's another metaphore, if the law is a person designed to protect the innocent, why would that person want to protect somone who is trying to hurt others that the law is also trying to protect?

Individual's cannot 'pick and choose' which laws to follow and which laws to ignore, or go against, if a large majority of people think a law needs to be changed, a politition in attempts of gaining votes and support will most likely hop onto bringing that aspect of changing that law into works, [of course there could be a polittion who actually agreed with the people who want the law changed, and thus would be even further compelled to work towards making the change]

At 6/7/07 04:47 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: It's CLOSE to saying that jailing a criminal is against that persons rights, metaphorically, if a country or a town is a bed, and there's a law that states that you cant stab the bed, a person who stabs the bed should expect to be thrown off of the bed.

as opposed to jail i assume it could be done (but why would you send them to somewhere they could be comfortable and be among peers? remember, jail doesn't take kindly to them). a jail sentence only moves people to the jail, or off the bed, for the duration of their sentence. it would require a lot of change within the judicial system to allow for a person who has committed a minor offence to be moved to a secluded "city" for the rest of his/her life (not to mention the cost and whatnot). those who have committed a major crime and sentenced to a life term could easily be sent and kept there.
this all sounds a lot like jail though; so why the need for a seperate community for all including those that show no significant threat to society?

See above post. A persons rights hasn't stopped the use of capital punishment before.

well it would have to reflect the severity of the crime and whether or not there is any hope for rehabilitation.

Civil laws and rights are bent when people break the laws of they're nation, it's not a persons right to break the law.

that is why there is the judicial system. what i said is that we can not go beyond what is prescribed and part of the system simply due to the level of disgust one feels. laws protect an individual's rights and despite the crime a person commits we all have inalienable human rights. action must be taken against that person but we have to keep in mind that the purpose of justice is not for revenge but to keep order and our rights safe.

forgot to mention that a seperate community makes them easy targets for attacks.

well they can get help in mental hospital thing, away from society till they are ok

At 6/6/07 04:13 PM, notld224 wrote:

Um.. and you're spelling is like that of an enraged 12 year who can't think straight. Aside from that, I know PLENTY about the subject. Besides, allowing computer generated child pornography would probably be a fairly decent way to satisfy pedophilic interests without actually involving REAL children, written text is even better, and PLEASE!. do not go on rants like that, it's totally stupid, I used to when I was 12, and that got me almost nowhere (Well, it got Hitler somewhere, for 18 years until he died).

P.S. I have a right to post and AE is the greek, possibly latin, using only E is the modern English. You can spell it either way. Doesn't matter.

Glad to see you know a lot about child molesting, I take it you are doing your research because of a fascination you have with young children? any person who defends a pedophile is not right in the head, and the comments you make are very disturbing, get some help..

there should be no leniency for any type of act that causes harm to children, and destroys there childhood. a kid only gets one, and when individuals like you , think that just because you want to touch, or whatever your sick mind wants to do with kids is OK, because you are born with that urge then it is up to us as responsible adults to protect our youth from people like you who can not control your actions.

At 6/5/07 08:37 PM, Memorize wrote: Do they deserve anything less than death?

I can't believe I'm saying this, but they probably need help. It's a mental condition which they can actually send you to jail for without even considering any means of reformation and correction.

Oh come off it. Abusing children is way wrong, but viewing child porn is only a 4 or 5 years in jail offence. Simple truth is that it doesn't harm anyone more than already have been. I know that supply and demand means if more people view it then more people will produce it, but just viewing an arrangement of pixels is not a violent crime and these people can still be "saved". Gays don't need cured because there is no need for them to be unless you're a fundy Christian cunt. With peados there is more of an argument for 'treatment'. Many of these people have been abused themselves or suffered a trauma which has made them the way they are, and sending them to prison where they are the bottom of the food chain will make them worse, it will normalize rape to them for one so that when they get out they are more likely to offend. I agree with everything that cop said, not just because I think it but because he's a cop and knows what he's talking about. While I don't want to talk about 'tolerance', I think the media has got people in America and the UK worked up into a huge feeding frenzy over this whole thing to the extent where morons are calling for "them all to be killed". They are fucking mentally ill, not rapists or murders (if they have actually raped a kid, then throw away the key). It's funny that you are willing to excuse the murder of people whos only crime is that they deviate from sexual norms AND society says you can hate them, whereas with gays society says you can't so you don't. I don't defend peados, and think viewing child porn should be punished, either with jail-time or with treatment to fix' them. The system we have now in the UK is about right I think, maybe including some of the things this policeman is recommending (that is, jail (but not a rapey jail, thats just you Americans that have them, and being put on a register for life and banned from going near schools etc)

Punishing pedos is fine, treating them is good too, but you have to assume that they're a threat.

Chemical castration laws are on the books and they seem to work. California has them (645 A under the link http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode ?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=639-653.1 ), as does Florida (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cf m?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL =Ch0794/SEC0235.HTM&Title=-%3E2006-%3ECh0794-
%3ESection%200235#0794.0235).

Do that AND lock them up in mental facilities. For a long, long time.

At 6/5/07 08:05 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/5/07 08:01 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: complete bullshit do the society a favor and KILL THEM there just wasting tax dollars using treatment, and there wont be a chance of them escalationg of turning on children

why not just execute every non-violent criminal, it would eliminate the possibility of them escalating their crimes and we wouldn't be wasting money on helping them get back into society.

executions don't save money. An execution costs more than life imprisonment because of all the red tape they have to go through to kill someone. It's better to just give them a life sentence.

At 6/9/07 03:41 PM, Musician wrote:

executions don't save money. An execution costs more than life imprisonment because of all the red tape they have to go through to kill someone. It's better to just give them a life sentence.

Or just give a family member a gun and pay him/her $50,000...

Kids are not hot! Except me!

At 6/9/07 03:06 AM, troubles1 wrote:

At 6/6/07 04:13 PM, notld224 wrote:

Um.. and you're spelling is like that of an enraged 12 year who can't think straight. Aside from that, I know PLENTY about the subject. Besides, allowing computer generated child pornography would probably be a fairly decent way to satisfy pedophilic interests without actually involving REAL children, written text is even better, and PLEASE!. do not go on rants like that, it's totally stupid, I used to when I was 12, and that got me almost nowhere (Well, it got Hitler somewhere, for 18 years until he died).

P.S. I have a right to post and AE is the greek, possibly latin, using only E is the modern English. You can spell it either way. Doesn't matter.

Glad to see you know a lot about child molesting, I take it you are doing your research because of a fascination you have with young children? any person who defends a pedophile is not right in the head, and the comments you make are very disturbing, get some help..

there should be no leniency for any type of act that causes harm to children, and destroys there childhood. a kid only gets one, and when individuals like you , think that just because you want to touch, or whatever your sick mind wants to do with kids is OK, because you are born with that urge then it is up to us as responsible adults to protect our youth from people like you who can not control your actions.

I never said I'm a pedophile. I simply said that I think the current methodology of dealing with this problem is broken. And all the tinkering and modification in the world won't this system work. It's flawed at the core, you CAN'T CURE pedophiles!. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS?!?!????1111.

It's a sexual orientation, irreversibly 99.9999% of the time. And unless you have technology 100 years from the future. Don't expect to 'cure' pedophiles anytime soon. Thus, because they're stuck as pedophiles. They need an outlet (Duh.... every sexual attraction does). In Japan, they have so much Rape Porn it's not even funny. But because of it, they have some of the lowest sexual crime levels in the world.

However, since Filming naked 12 year olds being fucked in the ass highly dubious and socially unaaceptable. Whats wrong with substituting computer generated or hand drawn child porn, or erotic writing instead?. In Japan it's called Lolicon I think, and that would probably help alleviate most the cases of molestation etc.

Besides, most sex above 15 is pretty much acceptable, since human beings reach peak mental and physical capacity from 13-15 (Contrary to popular belief, read Robert Epstein's "The Case Against Adolescence" if you don't believe me).

So with pedophilia, NOT infantophilia (Kids younger than like six). The problem age gap is from 7-12. Thus the above mentioned substitutes should work fine. Since the problem is with REAL kids. (Yes... you can argue that hyper realistic ray traced computer generated child pornography will be very hard to differentiate, and simple legally mandated strings of code to denote that the images are made of computer generated pixels is a simple fix to prove it's legal material).

And for you troubles1, I REALLY take offense to such a mindless personal attack. THE LEAST you could have done was critique my POV and provide arguments for and against. Not just call me a pedophile and say I'm sick in the head. That's idiocy at its worst......

At 6/9/07 04:26 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/9/07 03:41 PM, Musician wrote:

executions don't save money. An execution costs more than life imprisonment because of all the red tape they have to go through to kill someone. It's better to just give them a life sentence.

Or just give a family member a gun and pay him/her $50,000...

it's also morally wrong to kill anyone

this thread might as well be an underage circle-jerk.

At 6/9/07 11:36 PM, Musician wrote:

it's also morally wrong to kill anyone

No. It's morally wrong to kill an innocent.

lets make this a fancy circle-jerk!

At 6/9/07 11:40 PM, SolInvictus wrote: this thread might as well be an underage circle-jerk.

That's hot... wait...

and then let them rape our kids

At 6/9/07 11:47 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/9/07 11:36 PM, Musician wrote:

it's also morally wrong to kill anyone

No. It's morally wrong to kill an innocent.

Read your own fucking bible.

"Thou shalt not kill"

not

"Thou shalt not kill innocents"

At 6/10/07 05:19 PM, Bolo wrote:

Read your own fucking bible.

K.

"Thou shalt not kill"

Actually, the more accurate translation is "Thou shalt not murder". Which is different than "kill". For if it were literally "thou shalt not kill", then every US soldier would be put on trial for 'war crimes' for killing.

Try again, numb nuts.

"Thou shalt not kill innocents"

Yeah.

But considering it is not really murder to kill a murderer or rapist, then you should be able to kill a rapist, murderer, child killer, or child molestor.

It's not my fault people like you made this nation weak.

And don't even try to lecture me on my religous book.