Register

Log In

Autistic (Asperger) Student had 900 child porn collection

Page 12 of 13 [ 198 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Larree
Snowy Owl

Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 149
Location: Hollywood, CA

25 Jul 2008, 9:11 am

roguetech wrote:

Larree wrote:

roguetech wrote:

For instance, a mandatory sentence against using firearms during a crime, may detere some crime... But, if someone does commit a crime with a hand gun, it encourages them to bring a working gun with ammunition (sentence will be the same regardless). If they're guaranteed to recieve 20 years, they may also feel they have nothing to loose if they are "cornered". and "go down shooting".

Would you do that?

If I were going to rob a place (in FL there is a "10, 20, life" or something like that... use a gun, fire a gun, shoot someone)), and felt it necesary to bring a gun, yes. I would take a real gun (for all I know it applies to squirt guns), and I would make sure it was loaded. And if I felt it necessary to shoot it, I certainly would not stop at one shot. I personally would not shoot someone, but I don't feel it's unreasonable to surmise that someone who would, would not aim to wound.

Those who believe in "zero tolerance", please take a moment to specify what punishment (or range of punishments based on circumstances not stated) you would personally advocate for the following offences.

1) 25 yo male has consenual sex with a 16 yo female, death
2) 25 yo male pays to join a "child porn" site and downloads photos, life in prison for the guy and the webmasters
3) 25 yo male kidnaps a 6 yo female from school, and sexually assualts her, death
4) 18 yo female downloads nude picture of 17 female friend from a social networking site, life in prison for her and the webmasters
5) 25 yo female has consenual sex with a 16 yo male, death
6) 25 yo male takes pictures of a 6 yo female relative (with no direct physical harm) death

_________________
http://iacmusic.com/larree

roguetech
Deinonychus

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 359
Location: Climax

25 Jul 2008, 9:22 am

[tried to edit the post, but Larree is too on top of things... Original post:]
Alright, now we know where you stand. You advocate sending a young adult to prison for life for looking at a picture with the consent of the subject, even though the photo was taken legally, posted to the internet legally, and hosted on the internet legally. You also feel that the board of any corporation that legally hosts a picture should be given life sentences.

Last edited by roguetech on 25 Jul 2008, 9:26 am, edited 3 times in total.

roguetech
Deinonychus

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 359
Location: Climax

25 Jul 2008, 9:24 am

Larree wrote:

1) 25 yo male has consenual sex with a 16 yo female, death
2) 25 yo male pays to join a "child porn" site and downloads photos, life in prison for the guy and the webmasters
3) 25 yo male kidnaps a 6 yo female from school, and sexually assualts her, death
4) 18 yo female downloads nude picture of 17 female friend from a social networking site, life in prison for her and the webmasters
5) 25 yo female has consenual sex with a 16 yo male, death
6) 25 yo male takes pictures of a 6 yo female relative (with no direct physical harm) death

Alright, now we know where you stand, including giving life sentences for things that are currently completely legal.

Larree
Snowy Owl

Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 149
Location: Hollywood, CA

25 Jul 2008, 9:24 am

roguetech wrote:

Larree wrote:

4) 18 yo female downloads nude picture of 17 female friend from a social networking site, life in prison for her and the webmasters

Alright, now we know where you stand. You advocate sending a young adult to prison for life for looking at a picture with the consent of the subject, even though the photo was taken legally, posted to the internet legally, and hosted on the internet legally. You also feel that the board of any corporation that legally hosts a picture should be given life sentences.

17 is NOT an adult. So, the 18-year-old should have known better. Lock her up! The 17-year-old's parents should be locked up for allowing their daughter to become a trashy exhibitionist slut, too.

_________________
http://iacmusic.com/larree

Last edited by Larree on 25 Jul 2008, 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

roguetech
Deinonychus

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 359
Location: Climax

25 Jul 2008, 9:27 am

Larree wrote:

17 is NOT an adult. So, the 18-year-old should have known better. Lock her up! The 17-year-old's parents should be locked up, too.

Even though it is completely legal for them to have sex? But if the 18 yo dares to download a picture that she did not even take, it's life?

LOL :lol:

:lol:

LOL You are too funny, Larree. Thank you for demonstrating my point on "zero tolerance" mentality better than I ever could have, since I think you might just actually be serious.

[And while we're at it, let's lock up the parents of a young adult, becuase the young adult does something that's completely legal, despite the fact that the young adult is not necesarily the ward of her parents anymore!!

You are too good Larree!]

Larree
Snowy Owl

Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 149
Location: Hollywood, CA

25 Jul 2008, 9:31 am

roguetech wrote:

Larree wrote:

17 is NOT an adult. So, the 18-year-old should have known better. Lock her up! The 17-year-old's parents should be locked up, too.

Even though it is completely legal for them to have sex? But if the 18 yo dares to download a picture that she did not even take, it's life?

LOL :lol:

:lol:

LOL You are too funny, Larree. Thank you for demonstrating my point on "zero tolerance" mentality better than I ever could have, since I think you might just actually be serious.

[And while we're at it, let's lock up the parents of a young adult, becuase the young adult does something that's completely legal, despite the fact that the young adult is not necesarily the ward of her parents anymore!!

You are too good Larree!]

HAHAHA! I edited in the part about the parents on my post before reading your post! HAHAHA

_________________
http://iacmusic.com/larree

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

25 Jul 2008, 9:48 am

roguetech wrote:

Larree wrote:

17 is NOT an adult. So, the 18-year-old should have known better. Lock her up! The 17-year-old's parents should be locked up, too.

Even though it is completely legal for them to have sex? But if the 18 yo dares to download a picture that she did not even take, it's life?

LOL :lol:

:lol:

LOL You are too funny, Larree. Thank you for demonstrating my point on "zero tolerance" mentality better than I ever could have, since I think you might just actually be serious.

[And while we're at it, let's lock up the parents of a young adult, becuase the young adult does something that's completely legal, despite the fact that the young adult is not necesarily the ward of her parents anymore!!

You are too good Larree!]

I still don't know whose side you're on, RT. I suspect the worst.

roguetech
Deinonychus

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 359
Location: Climax

25 Jul 2008, 9:50 am

Just for point of fact, you can not (in a land of laws), lock someone up for life or otherwise if they have not broken a law. (Alright, Bush has proven this is completely untrue, but it should be true.)

So first you'll have to actually say that it is illegal for a 17 yo to take photos of themselves. You'll have to specify that 17 yo's can not be independent, for both living on their own and age of consent. You'll have to write a law stating that parents are criminally responsible for their children. You'll have to write a law stating that social networks and search engines are criminally responsible for the content on their sites. If search engines are responsible, then so too are ISPs, since they are roughly equivalant (even though you made no mention of looking up the ISP owners). If you require that of ISPs, then libraries should be criminally responsible for all content within there books. Video rental, music rental stores, and download sites like youtube obviously should be held responsible for their content too. Those are just the laws that would be directly needed to accomplish your punishments. Naturally, there would be trickle effect to seat belt laws, drinking and driving, drug distribution, etc., etc.

So, I think in the world of Larree, we have no libraries, no internet, and pretty much everyone is a felon.

roguetech
Deinonychus

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 359
Location: Climax

25 Jul 2008, 9:52 am

slowmutant wrote:

I still don't know whose side you're on, RT. I suspect the worst.

Certainly not on the side of locking up parents when their legally independent child does something that's completely legal

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

25 Jul 2008, 9:59 am

roguetech wrote:

slowmutant wrote:

I still don't know whose side you're on, RT. I suspect the worst.

Certainly not on the side of locking up parents when their legally independent child does something that's completely legal

... and my suspicions are confimed.

Larree
Snowy Owl

Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 149
Location: Hollywood, CA

25 Jul 2008, 9:59 am

roguetech wrote:

Just for point of fact, you can not (in a land of laws), lock someone up for life or otherwise if they have not broken a law. (Alright, Bush has proven this is completely untrue, but it should be true.)

So first you'll have to actually say that it is illegal for a 17 yo to take photos of themselves. You'll have to specify that 17 yo's can not be independent, for both living on their own and age of consent. You'll have to write a law stating that parents are criminally responsible for their children. You'll have to write a law stating that social networks and search engines are criminally responsible for the content on their sites. If search engines are responsible, then so too are ISPs, since they are roughly equivalant (even though you made no mention of looking up the ISP owners). If you require that of ISPs, then libraries should be criminally responsible for all content within there books. Video rental, music rental stores, and download sites like youtube obviously should be held responsible for their content too. Those are just the laws that would be directly needed to accomplish your punishments. Naturally, there would be trickle effect to seat belt laws, drinking and driving, drug distribution, etc., etc.

So, I think in the world of Larree, we have no libraries, no internet, and pretty much everyone is a felon.

Well, I do not like typing. I play guitar, and typing hurts my hands. So, I am not going to write a book out here.

I am a libertarian. I like libraries.

_________________
http://iacmusic.com/larree

roguetech
Deinonychus

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 359
Location: Climax

25 Jul 2008, 10:06 am

Larree wrote:

Well, I do not like typing. I play guitar, and typing hurts my hands. So, I am not going to write a book out here.

I am a libertarian. I like libraries.

Tough luck. No one would be willing to own, operate, or work for a library if they are criminally responsible for anything printed, written, or inserted into any of the books.

[For a Libertarian, you sure seem to be short on the desire for Liberty!]

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

25 Jul 2008, 10:18 am

He's got you there, Larree.

Sorry to say.

roguetech
Deinonychus

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 359
Location: Climax

25 Jul 2008, 10:24 am

slowmutant wrote:

He's got you there, Larree.

Sorry to say.

(OMG, slowmutant and I agree!

)

Larree
Snowy Owl

Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 149
Location: Hollywood, CA

25 Jul 2008, 10:35 am

Sorry. Got you guys. I am all for liberty. And infringing on the liberties of children is a major violation of true libertarian principles. Anyone who molests and exploits children, and violates their rights, needs to fry!

_________________
http://iacmusic.com/larree

roguetech
Deinonychus

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 359
Location: Climax

25 Jul 2008, 11:40 am

No arguement. But that includes both libertarians and librarians. (And people who drive cars.)

Page 12 of 13 [ 198 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

Jump to: