On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:50:50 -0700, jeanpauljesus wrote
(in article <gapgns$9k7$1@aioe.org>):
> Have to agree with Vlad there.
>
> I'm always amazed how otherwise rational people cannot see that resources
> devoted to chasing what should be low priority bogies are resources that
> cannot be spent on truly high priority issues.
>
> The reason they cannot see this is because their claims to "protect"
> children in this way are - whether they are aware of this or not, usually
> not - actually come from their arbitrary morality and terror about sex
> and sexuality, and not so much from rational analysis of actual risks to
> children, especially in the case of boys. Yet pedophiles are the ones
> who are supposed to exhibit "cognitive distortion" (!).
>
> And of course, we have seen research that questions the assumptions and
> claims of the CA industry censured and its authors professionally
> ostracized - that's where such research isn't outright buried to begin
> with, that is. Why bother listening to that which you don't agree with?
>
> The assumption that photographing a child nude will "harm" children is a
> case in point. That assumption has been extended by the CA Industry to
> include a whole range of images that, until a few years ago, were never
> seen as "indecent" at all. It's arbitrary, and entirely culturally
> determined.
>
> But you're wasting your time Vlad on NB - he's just a troll and just
> spews whatever. I never read his posts.
>
>
>
M. Jeanpaul:
I agree completely. But I think it is a bit more pernicious than most
realize.
It has nothing to do with morality or legality. The proscription of nude
pictures is merely a means of social control. Any power-craving despotic
government will undertake a couple of things straightaway. The first is to
subvert culture (often by banning dialects or native languages) and the
second is to criminalize normal behavior.
The second is what concerns us here, and what happens is that by
criminalizing normal behavior those in power create a huge resevoir of
criminals who can be apprehended at any time. There is, therefore a fearful
population of citizens who will be in hiding and protecting themselves and
particularly from each other. WWII Germany is an example of this in action.
Thus, citizen is turned against citizen and the social fabric is ripped
apart. Without a coherent social fabric, a serious challenge to the power
holder cannot be undertaken.
That is, of course, what we see here. Y-Not and other have been attempting
for some time now to create divisiveness among group members. His allies
have threatened to 'turn people in' or provided information on how others
might do so. The fabric of social cohesion is broken down, trust goes out
the window.
Any effective means to challenge authority or power cannot be mounted.
So for the power seeker, looking at little boys' willies is a serious crime,
more serious than actually killing the boy (look at average sentencing if you
don't believe me). Of course this is absurd if the question is a legal or
moral one.
But it is not about that at all.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|