He certainly has an interesting and limited concept of doing no harm to another person. I guess it's okay to watch and even pay to watch somebody rape or kill somebody else as well since the watcher is not actually hurting anyone...
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
Was the cheif strategist of the WildRose Campaign for the last election. He was also one of the key members of the "Calgary School" at the U of C political science department which gave birth to Stephen Harper and the Reform Party movement.
He certainly has an interesting and limited concept of doing no harm to another person. I guess it's okay to watch and even pay to watch somebody rape or kill somebody else as well since the watcher is not actually hurting anyone...
But what if the video of someone raping someone is just "out there"? Paying someone to make the video (or making the video one's self) is pretty clear, but it's less clear (to me anyway) where the harm comes from in watching a video that already exists.
It doesn't harm the victim further, that harm has already been done.
What's the difference between someone viewing a rape video that's "in the wild", someone viewing a movie that depicts rape, or someone drawing a cartoon depicting rape?
Kind of playing devil's advocate here, but I also think I get what his point is, that I don't want to be in a society that has thought crimes.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canehdianman
His point is that the person looking at a picture isn't harming anyone directly. The harm has occurred by the person who took the picture.
It's stupid, but he isn't actually saying no one gets hurt.
But it is.
If there is no market for such things, then no children get harmed. Its pretty simple and i am baffled he can't think that aspect through...or he himself is actually a NAMBLA member and as such believes the tripe they espouse.
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
But what if the video of someone raping someone is just "out there"? Paying someone to make the video (or making the video one's self) is pretty clear, but it's less clear (to me anyway) where the harm comes from in watching a video that already exists.
It doesn't harm the victim further, that harm has already been done.
What's the difference between someone viewing a rape video that's "in the wild", someone viewing a movie that depicts rape, or someone drawing a cartoon depicting rape?
Kind of playing devil's advocate here, but I also think I get what his point is, that I don't want to be in a society that has thought crimes.
Everytime a video or picture is viewed the victim is reviolated.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to First Lady For This Useful Post:
I grew up living on the same street as him - I believe had a least 1 daughter. I find it hard to believe that any sane father would be onside with kiddie pr0n.
It's the presence of nutjobs and other amateurs like this that prevent me from seriously considering Wildrose. Keep purging, and maybe we can talk.
Yeah exactly. I understand what Photon is saying, but once you watch those videos that's a line being crossed.
I'm sure there are people out there who find children (or teens etc) attractive but never act on it. Those feelings aren't their fault. But unfortunately (for them) they can't ever act on it. Crossing that line includes watching child porn.
The Following User Says Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
If there is no market for such things, then no children get harmed. Its pretty simple and i am baffled he can't think that aspect through...or he himself is actually a NAMBLA member and as such believes the tripe they espouse.
Yeah, I'm not arguing with you dude. But that's his point.
Tom Flanagan is okay with child pornography
Seriously. WTF ???
