Powers’ assumption that as long as Haggard’s church is “big” it can somehow be connected to the political arena, but as long as we can say “former” president, it means nothing. Apparently one can pick up one’s sexual predilection pretty quickly.

Also the part about “not drawing lines”. These are liberals. As long as you have an invasion of Iraq and a threat to someone’s daddy by the ruler of Iraq, they are connected. They don’t draw conclusions?

See it’s not so much about what conclusions we should draw as the manifest aversion to drawing certain types of conclusions, or publishing the news in such a way that promotes innuendo–if the subject is not conservative.

That’s what the Haggard thing was about: innuendo.

Here’s the danger….
Watching this stuff creates a demand.
Demand creates a market.
The larger the market, the more room there is for more adults to provide the product.
The more adults involved, the more the product is provided, and more children are abused to provide the product.

The amount of children that are abused in third world countries is a direct reflection on the increase of adults wanting to engage in that behavior. Ask Daryl Hanna.

Now can anyone claim that MORE child abuse is good?

Whoever is arguing this point and isn’t a sick pervert…..you need to re-think your position using the concept I have just provided. I wont bother telling the pervert as he/she isn’t listening anyway.

The Monster on February 27, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Like I said, spend some time with people who have had experience with this stuff, and you would change your mind. Right now no one is going to change your mind, it is closed.
You should join the ACLU, they believe in much the same as you. NAMBLA must be ok with you also, they only look at pictures.

Interesting how you stopped my quote before the 8 year old remark

That’s because I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the original statement:

That is an absurd position in which people profit from the statutory rape (and worse) of children.

I gave a very specific example of consensual sex between teenagers old enough that the act was not statutory rape, but that their having taken pictures of it was criminal. I’ve asked for some sense of proportionality, of logic, and reason.

In return, I’m called ‘creepy’ and accused of paedophilia.

If you are angry because I caused you grief…talk to a parent who has a real reason to be angry.

If you feel these posts raised some anger and indignation in you. Then you now know , that pictures on a computer can cause real damage.

That your words cause me some emotional state or other does not justify me beating the crap out of you, nor hiring men with badges and guns to punish you on my behalf. (Out of respect to Michelle and her staff, I’ve even refrained from responding in kind to the personal attacks against me.) What is so damn hard to understand about that? When you defend a law, you approve of the application of violence against those who break it. Any of it, not just the cases you want to talk about.

No matter how disgusted I am at the words directed against me here, I have no moral right to respond violently. Nor do I have the right to do so in the specific example I gave, where the pictures were made with the consent of people old enough to give that consent.

Are you seriously trying to say that it’s OK to actually have consensual sex with someone over the age of consent, but under 18, but somehow worse to take a picture of it? Bear in mind that the abortion industry says that even girls under that age of consent have the absolute right to terminate pregnancy, and neither their parents nor the state has authority to stop them, nor even to be informed. So “Juliet” is old enough to decide to engage in sexual activity, and to abort any fetae she conceives, but she can’t take a picture of any of it?

I might as well be defending witchcraft suspects in Salem.

If you feel these posts raised some anger and indignation in you. Then you now know , that pictures on a computer can cause real damage.

The Monster on February 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Interesting how you stopped my quote before the 8 year old remark. 16, maybe knows better, ask any pedophile and he can nail any 6 or 8yr old, all day, every day of the week. You think being a good parent keeps your child out of trouble? Walk on down to your local police dept. ask to speak to a person that is an expert, and ask him/her how many good, caring, loving, concerned parents have lost their child to a professional pedophile. Than ask if any of those pedophiles had pictures of children in the most disgusting situations.

Get your head out of the sand. The foundation of pedophile is pictures that stimulate. Or do you already know that?

I ‘provide’ nothing of the sort. Why is it so hard to understand that my unwillingness to send armed state agents to stop something doesn’t connote support for that thing, nor ‘provide a market’ for it. I don’t buy their products, so I’m not abetting any abuse.

And what? Are you trying to say that those who buy and sell kiddie porn aren’t supporting kiddie porn?

And Lawrence calls me ‘creepy’ because I think cops have better things to do than arrest teenagers for emailing pictures of what they are legally entitled to do.

The Monster on February 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Actually, teenagers under tha age of 18 are not legally able to view porn anyway. So your point here still doesn’t work.

Legally, teens under the age of 16 can have sex with each other. Legally, they can also pose naked if they want to.

So what’s your argument here, that if they can legally have sex they should be able to legally create their own porn? That’s a side-note in a discussion on kiddie porn.

But let’s say that this happens, that teens who can legally have sex, can legally make their own pornos. Do you believe they should be able to distribute their own work to others, maybe even make a profit off of it?

You never addressed any of this, and I never insulted you.

And raise your child however you will, but you cannot be around them all of the time. Not every child who is molested has bad parents. And not every child who has been molested ever tells his/her parents.

Often, children are molested by their peers, children who don’t even understand the sexual acts they’re performing.

And last, how do you prove who took the pictures? If those teens took the pics themselves, then that’s a shame, but legally, they cannot be in porn, and if someone else took those pictures, it’s illegal.

If what you wish became true, any perv can claim the inviduals took the pictures themselves and that he/she just stubbled upon the pictures afterwards.

You agree that people taking the pictures are abusing the children, yet you abet this abuse by providing them a market by which to exploit those pictures.

I agree that people taking pictures of those who are not competent to grant consent to the acts being depicted, nor the pictures thereof, are abusing them.

I ‘provide’ nothing of the sort. Why is it so hard to understand that my unwillingness to send armed state agents to stop something doesn’t connote support for that thing, nor ‘provide a market’ for it. I don’t buy their products, so I’m not abetting any abuse.

If you had a child you would feel quite safe leaving your young beautiful daughter with this guy for a weekend? You could loan him your camera…bet he would love to have his computer filled with shots of your daughter…kind of turns you on doesn’t it

Another volunteer steps up to the plate to prove my point. There are many things that are completely legal that I don’t allow my daughter to do (like having Whorez dolls, although she was thankfully old enough to not want dolls by the time they came out). It’s called ‘being a parent’. I don’t expect the government to do my job for me. If you haven’t raised your kids to exercise good judgement when it comes to sex by the time they’re 16, I doubt that any law could do the job for you.

Since I question some aspects of the laws about ‘kiddie porn’, you accuse me of being a paedophile who is turned on by sexually-suggestive photos of my own daughter. That is a personal attack that is completely unwarranted.

And Lawrence calls me ‘creepy’ because I think cops have better things to do than arrest teenagers for emailing pictures of what they are legally entitled to do.

We will never be able to have a civilized, sane discussion of this subject, because people descend to name-calling at the drop of a hat.

And speaking of over-stretched analogies….Elisabeth Shue???

Good screencap, but the hand over the mouth shot is still the best.

Slublog on February 27, 2007 at 12:30 AM

It’s a true classic. Chill wind, indeed.

Bill O spanked KP pretty hard on last night show. Is anyone surprised at AP’s support of KP’s position in this thread? hahaha J/K AP!

But looking at pictures isn’t abuse.
…
You’re blurring the lines so much that I don’t see how you can fault anyone for anything related to kiddie porn.

The Monster on February 26, 2007 at 11:08 PM

How about drooling? would that bother you?

If you had a child you would feel quite safe leaving your young beautiful daughter with this guy for a weekend? You could loan him your camera…bet he would love to have his computer filled with shots of your daughter…kind of turns you on doesn’t it…yeah, he was just looking, no harm. His friends would have those pictures…that kind of turns you on…late at night, looking at your daughter, her dress being pulled up, panties down…look at your daughter, 8 years old, she looks kind of sexy…hey, there’s a great picture with that guy on top of her…where’s his hand going…you like that, and so did he…he was just looking, like you would like to look.

He was just looking, no harm.

Interesting that Michelle parlayed this Hot Air gig into a Fox News web-watch show (and sitting in on the Factor).

Someone trying to get a recurring reporting role on Fox News? I report, you decide.

Neo on February 26, 2007 at 10:49 PM

You should learn some facts before making a stupid statement. She was a syndicated columnist long before this internet stuff (long compared to how quick blogging took off), she was on Fox well before any internet gigs. She was branded a danger to the left far before HA or her site. Her columns put a knife in many liberals bleeding heart, you should have learned to read before 2005.
Syndicated Columnist
News Analyst
Internet Blogger
The ultimate triple threat, I don’t think anyone is as successful at all three as Michelle.

Oh one more…professional liberal nose tweaker. That is the best.

But looking at pictures isn’t abuse.
…
You’re blurring the lines so much that I don’t see how you can fault anyone for anything related to kiddie porn.

The Monster on February 26, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Okay, Monster, I find your position on this more than just a little bit creepy.

It is true that simply looking at the pictures is not specifically abuse. However, as Ethier explains, it very much is exploitation.

You agree that people taking the pictures are abusing the children, yet you abet this abuse by providing them a market by which to exploit those pictures.

There are to blurry lines here.