Dumbest thread ever - TTLG Forums

Chimpy Chompy on 25/5/2006 at 17:13

Quote Posted by Naartjie

But you can't pull off calling me a twat

Would bellend be more appropriate?

SD on 25/5/2006 at 17:20

Did OrbWeaver run over Naartjie's cat or something?

Colour me utterly bemused at any of the flak Mr Weaver has been copping in this thread. He has been bang on the money with pretty much everything he's written.

Rug Burn Junky on 25/5/2006 at 17:22

Quote Posted by Naartjie

But you can't pull off calling me a twat, so don't do it in future.

Jigga please. You're a whiny pansy, and I'll call you what I damn well please.

Para?noid on 25/5/2006 at 17:26

His cat? More like his TWAT

(Just preppin')

OrbWeaver on 25/5/2006 at 18:09

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Colour me utterly bemused at any of the flak Mr Weaver has been copping in this thread. He has been bang on the money with pretty much everything he's written.

It mostly comes down to fear.

People (men in particular) are frightened that if they fail to express sufficient condemnation for paedophiles, they will be lynched as a sympathiser or closet child abuser. As a result they are forced to take part in a undignified scrabble to express ever-increasing levels of hatred in order to prove just what a wholesome non-paedophile they are.

This is why you can find a lot of fairly well-reasoned arguments that start "I'm not condoning these evil fuckers, but..."

Vigil on 25/5/2006 at 18:21

Koki on 25/5/2006 at 19:51

So, what about The Blackman?

Chimpy Chompy on 25/5/2006 at 20:16

Well look on the bright side. I guess dumb paedophiles are better then clever paedophiles.

Oli G on 25/5/2006 at 21:36

Quote Posted by OrbWeaver

Wow, your not only an expert in lingustics and the legal system, you're also a psycho-analyst!

Or not. Get off your intellectual high horse and start speaking common sense. Specifically, I'd like you to address the point I raised about all kinds of child abuse meriting the same or very similar punishment. Whether paedophiles are downloading images, helping to procure a child for abuse, watching abuse take place or carrying out sexual abuse in any form, they're all complicit in the same crime. Even those not participating are aware of the abuse and doing nothing to stop it. It's no stretch of the rules of logic to say that they're all equally guilty and as a result equally deserving of punishment.

I fully agree with your insistence on having grades of legal punishment: but crimes in this area are so interconnected and mutually supportive that the punishment (whatever it happens to be) should be the same for them all. Gradation of punishment only becomes an issue either where different types of crime are involved (eg murder is worse than theft) or where the circumstances of a crime determine how serious it is - which could be the difference between stealing a piece of fruit and being an Enron executive, or the difference between killing a stranger for pleasure and killing an abusive husband for your own protection. Child abuse in all its forms doesn't fall into this category: the motivation is always the same (selfish sexual gratification) and the suffering of the victim is just as much the responsibility of the people who carry it out as the people paying to look at pictures of it and doing nothing to help stop it.

Fingernail on 25/5/2006 at 21:44

I don't think singling child abuse out as an exception to other crimes where there is just a flat sentence for having anything to do with it is a particularly correct way of dealing with it. It sets a precedent, more than anything, for taking no account of other considerations.

It also never seems to occur to people that perhaps what these people need is help, not punitive treatment, but then I'm probably a faggy lefty for thinking that rehabilitation is more important than punishment.