|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 19, 2013 0:36:06 GMT -5
This is true. He originally brought it up. However, you sprung to his defense with this: So do you admit you are wrong? Because you attributed his words to me when I NEVER said those things. I always have and always will believe viewing child porn should be illegal. Point to ONE post where I said it should be legal. I'll wait. Slappy, as an honorable man, I will say to you right now that I apologize for mistaking some things that Kliquid said and thinking that you said them. I still do not personally believe in your suggestion of what I consider to be a very LIGHT punishment of "counseling and therapy" for getting caught viewing child pornography.....but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that aspect. Although I can't imagine why anybody WOULDN'T want these people locked up behind bars and as far away from our children as possible.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 19, 2013 0:37:28 GMT -5
So do you admit you are wrong? Because you attributed his words to me when I NEVER said those things. I always have and always will believe viewing child porn should be illegal. Point to ONE post where I said it should be legal. I'll wait. Slappy, as an honorable man, I will say to you right now that I apologize for mistaking some things that Kliquid said and thinking that you said them. I still do not personally believe in your suggestion of what I consider to be a very LIGHT punishment of "counseling and therapy" for getting caught viewing child pornography.....but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that aspect. Although I can't imagine why anybody WOULDN'T want these people locked up behind bars and as far away from our children as possible. It seems because I don't agree with what you feel the punishment should be that means I am ok with it and want it legal. Just because I don't want to murder the bastards who view it doesn't mean I want it legal. I have no problem with us disagreeing on the punishment but please don't make it seem like I want to hold the kids down and take the pictures.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 19, 2013 0:45:04 GMT -5
Slappy, as an honorable man, I will say to you right now that I apologize for mistaking some things that Kliquid said and thinking that you said them. I still do not personally believe in your suggestion of what I consider to be a very LIGHT punishment of "counseling and therapy" for getting caught viewing child pornography.....but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that aspect. Although I can't imagine why anybody WOULDN'T want these people locked up behind bars and as far away from our children as possible. It seems because I don't agree with what you feel the punishment should be that means I am ok with it and want it legal. Just because I don't want to murder the bastards who view it doesn't mean I want it legal. I have no problem with us disagreeing on the punishment but please don't make it seem like I want to hold the kids down and take the pictures. Nobody said murder...this is a safe environment. We're all friends here. I merely said that suggesting counseling and therapy as an acceptable punishment for partaking in viewing what I consider to be one of the most heinous and reprehensible crimes.....it's kind of a joke. It's kinda like all of the celebrities that repeatedly get caught cheating on their wives and they make a sappy public statement and go to rehab for a couple of weeks. Cheating on your spouse isn't a crime, but do you get what I'm comparing it to? What I'm saying is that I find the punishment of counseling and therapy to be a joke. If you told me that I could commit all the crimes I wanted and all I had to do was go to counseling and therapy? Well, that doesn't sound like such a bad deal. So no, while you never said "child pornography should be legal", you essentially said, the punishment for looking at child pornography should be explaining why you like child pornography. That's like when Suzy tells the teacher that Timmy hit her and the teacher says "Timmy, don't hit Suzy"....while he was "reprimanded", nothing actually happened to Timmy so Timmy WILL do it again. By giving the act of hitting Suzy a consequence that Timmy finds undesirable, only THEN will the behavior cease.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 19, 2013 0:49:53 GMT -5
It seems because I don't agree with what you feel the punishment should be that means I am ok with it and want it legal. Just because I don't want to murder the bastards who view it doesn't mean I want it legal. I have no problem with us disagreeing on the punishment but please don't make it seem like I want to hold the kids down and take the pictures. Nobody said murder...this is a safe environment. We're all friends here. I merely said that suggesting counseling and therapy as an acceptable punishment for partaking in viewing what I consider to be one of the most heinous and reprehensible crimes.....it's kind of a joke. It's kinda like all of the celebrities that repeatedly get caught cheating on their wives and they make a sappy public statement and go to rehab for a couple of weeks. Cheating on your spouse isn't a crime, but do you get what I'm comparing it to? What I'm saying is that I find the punishment of counseling and therapy to be a joke. If you told me that I could commit all the crimes I wanted and all I had to do was go to counseling and therapy? Well, that doesn't sound like such a bad deal. So no, while you never said "child pornography should be legal", you essentially said, the punishment for looking at child pornography should be explaining why you like child pornography. That's like when Suzy tells the teacher that Timmy hit her and the teacher says "Timmy, don't hit Suzy"....while he was "reprimanded", nothing actually happened to Timmy so Timmy WILL do it again. It'd be actual therapy to help them quell their urges. If they ever harm a child with their own hands then of course jail should be mandatory. I'd like to help them before they get to the point of physically harming a child. Not to compare drug users and pedophiles but in a way some places are punishing drug users. Instead of jail they are getting them help to kick the habit through therapy/rehab. But not all terrible punishments, like the death penalty, are a deterrent.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 19, 2013 0:59:42 GMT -5
Nobody said murder...this is a safe environment. We're all friends here. I merely said that suggesting counseling and therapy as an acceptable punishment for partaking in viewing what I consider to be one of the most heinous and reprehensible crimes.....it's kind of a joke. It's kinda like all of the celebrities that repeatedly get caught cheating on their wives and they make a sappy public statement and go to rehab for a couple of weeks. Cheating on your spouse isn't a crime, but do you get what I'm comparing it to? What I'm saying is that I find the punishment of counseling and therapy to be a joke. If you told me that I could commit all the crimes I wanted and all I had to do was go to counseling and therapy? Well, that doesn't sound like such a bad deal. So no, while you never said "child pornography should be legal", you essentially said, the punishment for looking at child pornography should be explaining why you like child pornography. That's like when Suzy tells the teacher that Timmy hit her and the teacher says "Timmy, don't hit Suzy"....while he was "reprimanded", nothing actually happened to Timmy so Timmy WILL do it again. It'd be actual therapy to help them quell their urges. If they ever harm a child with their own hands then of course jail should be mandatory. I'd like to help them before they get to the point of physically harming a child. Not to compare drug users and pedophiles but in a way some places are punishing drug users. Instead of jail they are getting them help to kick the habit through therapy/rehab. But not all terrible punishments, like the death penalty, are a deterrent. I'm not sure what the rate of people who view child pornography and how many of them actually do or at least consider harming a child in real life is....but I'd have to guess that it's pretty low. I think a lot of people look at, talk about, or research a lot of things on the internet that they'd never do in real life. These are our own personal fantasies or whatever....some of them just happen to be sick and twisted. I just don't see how you're going to "punish" a guy who looks at child pornography by sending him to counseling and therapy. He likes looking at child pornography. He'd never touch a child in real life, but he likes looking at it on the computer. How are you going to make him NOT like seeing it on the computer. Short of electroshock therapy or a lobotomy, I don't think liking to merely VIEW something is an affliction that can be cured. In fact, by sending these people to therapy and counseling, and possible putting them under some sort of surveillance that monitors their internet usage.....by taking away access to internet child pornography, you'd in effect removed their vehicle for fulfilling their fantasy and might actually CAUSE this person to then carry out these acts on a real child that he was merely VIEWING on the computer before. I see only two solutions. You let the guy continue to view the child pornography and be satisfied that the internet is fulfilling his fantasy and he's not doing it in real life......or option 2, you throw him in prison. I propose the latter option. I think jail and real life tangible consequences are the ONLY way somebody is really going to learn their lesson and get over whatever it is they're doing wrong. But I don't thin counseling and therapy with no actual tangible consequence is going to stop him from looking at child pornography.....he's just going to do it again. And like I said, if you let him go but take away his ability to access the child pornography on the internet, you risk forcing him to act out his internet fantasy in real life. I think these people who like child pornography have a mental disease and should be away from the rest of society in a mental hospital or a jail.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 19, 2013 1:01:52 GMT -5
Nobody said murder...this is a safe environment. We're all friends here. I merely said that suggesting counseling and therapy as an acceptable punishment for partaking in viewing what I consider to be one of the most heinous and reprehensible crimes.....it's kind of a joke. It's kinda like all of the celebrities that repeatedly get caught cheating on their wives and they make a sappy public statement and go to rehab for a couple of weeks. Cheating on your spouse isn't a crime, but do you get what I'm comparing it to? What I'm saying is that I find the punishment of counseling and therapy to be a joke. If you told me that I could commit all the crimes I wanted and all I had to do was go to counseling and therapy? Well, that doesn't sound like such a bad deal. So no, while you never said "child pornography should be legal", you essentially said, the punishment for looking at child pornography should be explaining why you like child pornography. That's like when Suzy tells the teacher that Timmy hit her and the teacher says "Timmy, don't hit Suzy"....while he was "reprimanded", nothing actually happened to Timmy so Timmy WILL do it again. It'd be actual therapy to help them quell their urges. If they ever harm a child with their own hands then of course jail should be mandatory. I'd like to help them before they get to the point of physically harming a child. Not to compare drug users and pedophiles but in a way some places are punishing drug users. Instead of jail they are getting them help to kick the habit through therapy/rehab. But not all terrible punishments, like the death penalty, are a deterrent. pedophiles, in most cases, have severe mental problems. there's a lot of debate on how they should be treated. what's a long prison term gonna do, other than cost money? nothing. most of them reoffend.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 19, 2013 1:01:57 GMT -5
It'd be actual therapy to help them quell their urges. If they ever harm a child with their own hands then of course jail should be mandatory. I'd like to help them before they get to the point of physically harming a child. Not to compare drug users and pedophiles but in a way some places are punishing drug users. Instead of jail they are getting them help to kick the habit through therapy/rehab. But not all terrible punishments, like the death penalty, are a deterrent. I'm not sure what the rate of people who view child pornography and how many of them actually do or at least consider harming a child in real life is....but I'd have to guess that it's pretty low. I think a lot of people look at, talk about, or research a lot of things on the internet that they'd never do in real life. These are our own personal fantasies or whatever....some of them just happen to be sick and twisted. I just don't see how you're going to "punish" a guy who looks at child pornography by sending him to counseling and therapy. He likes looking at child pornography. He'd never touch a child in real life, but he likes looking at it on the computer. How are you going to make him NOT like seeing it on the computer. Short of electroshock therapy or a lobotomy, I don't think liking to merely VIEW something is an affliction that can be cured. In fact, by sending these people to therapy and counseling, and possible putting them under some sort of surveillance that monitors their internet usage.....by taking away access to internet child pornography, you'd in effect removed their vehicle for fulfilling their fantasy and might actually CAUSE this person to then carry out these acts on a real child that he was merely VIEWING on the computer before. I see only two solutions. You let the guy continue to view the child pornography and be satisfied that the internet is fulfilling his fantasy and he's not doing it in real life......or option 2, you throw him in prison. I propose the latter option. I think jail and real life tangible consequences are the ONLY way somebody is really going to learn their lesson and get over whatever it is their doing wrong. But I don't thin counseling and therapy with no actual tangible consequence is going to stop him from looking at child pornography.....he's just going to do it again. And like I said, if you let him go but take away his ability to access the child pornography on the internet, you risk forcing him to act out his internet fantasy in real life. I think these people who like child pornography have a mental disease and should be away from the rest of society in a mental hospital or a jail. Recidivism rates, for most crimes, are high so jail doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop doing what they do.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 19, 2013 1:02:55 GMT -5
It'd be actual therapy to help them quell their urges. If they ever harm a child with their own hands then of course jail should be mandatory. I'd like to help them before they get to the point of physically harming a child. Not to compare drug users and pedophiles but in a way some places are punishing drug users. Instead of jail they are getting them help to kick the habit through therapy/rehab. But not all terrible punishments, like the death penalty, are a deterrent. pedophiles, in most cases, have severe mental problems. there's a lot of debate on how they should be treated. what's a long prison term gonna do, other than cost money? nothing. most of them reoffend. Which is why I think we should get them in some kind of treatment.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 19, 2013 1:08:53 GMT -5
I'm not sure what the rate of people who view child pornography and how many of them actually do or at least consider harming a child in real life is....but I'd have to guess that it's pretty low. I think a lot of people look at, talk about, or research a lot of things on the internet that they'd never do in real life. These are our own personal fantasies or whatever....some of them just happen to be sick and twisted. I just don't see how you're going to "punish" a guy who looks at child pornography by sending him to counseling and therapy. He likes looking at child pornography. He'd never touch a child in real life, but he likes looking at it on the computer. How are you going to make him NOT like seeing it on the computer. Short of electroshock therapy or a lobotomy, I don't think liking to merely VIEW something is an affliction that can be cured. In fact, by sending these people to therapy and counseling, and possible putting them under some sort of surveillance that monitors their internet usage.....by taking away access to internet child pornography, you'd in effect removed their vehicle for fulfilling their fantasy and might actually CAUSE this person to then carry out these acts on a real child that he was merely VIEWING on the computer before. I see only two solutions. You let the guy continue to view the child pornography and be satisfied that the internet is fulfilling his fantasy and he's not doing it in real life......or option 2, you throw him in prison. I propose the latter option. I think jail and real life tangible consequences are the ONLY way somebody is really going to learn their lesson and get over whatever it is their doing wrong. But I don't thin counseling and therapy with no actual tangible consequence is going to stop him from looking at child pornography.....he's just going to do it again. And like I said, if you let him go but take away his ability to access the child pornography on the internet, you risk forcing him to act out his internet fantasy in real life. I think these people who like child pornography have a mental disease and should be away from the rest of society in a mental hospital or a jail. Recidivism rates, for most crimes, are high so jail doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop doing what they do. With no known treatments, and the foregone conclusion that they will re-offend.....would then the only possible solution be permanent incarceration? This would be expensive for tax payers, jails would become over crowded, new jails would clearly have to be built and again, I acknowledge that this would be a very expensive alternative......but I just have never been satisfied with just letting criminals go because it's cheaper. Bottom line is they did something wrong, statistics say they'll do it again, if we as a people think it is more acceptable to just cut them loose after a while and allow them to put MORE people in danger than have already been affected by their original crimes.....it's just an unacceptable solution. I'm a big fan of life in prison. Maybe instead of outsourcing our JOBS we should be outsourcing our CRIMINALS. Tell a Criminal "Oh, you like to look at child pornography? HAVE FUN LIVING IN AFGHANISTAN!" and see what he says.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 19, 2013 1:10:19 GMT -5
Recidivism rates, for most crimes, are high so jail doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop doing what they do. With no known treatments, and the foregone conclusion that they will re-offend.....would then the only possible solution be permanent incarceration? This would be expensive for tax payers, jails would become over crowded, new jails would clearly have to be built and again, I acknowledge that this would be a very expensive alternative......but I just have never been satisfied with just letting criminals go because it's cheaper. Bottom line is they did something wrong, statistics say they'll do it again, if we as a people think it is more acceptable to just cut them loose after a while and allow them to put MORE people in danger than have already been affected by their original crimes.....it's just an unacceptable solution. I'm a big fan of life in prison. Maybe instead of outsourcing our JOBS we should be outsourcing our CRIMINALS. Tell a Criminal "Oh, you like to look at child pornography? HAVE FUN LIVING IN AFGHANISTAN!" and see what he says. If we rid prisons and jails of people who are in for victimless crimes then there would be more room for those type of people.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 19, 2013 1:12:27 GMT -5
I've always been a big believer in putting inmates to work. Monitored work, of course.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 19, 2013 1:14:50 GMT -5
I've always been a big believer in putting inmates to work. Monitored work, of course. I've said it before that the criminal should have to work for the family or person they wronged. That way they can get some actual retribution and payback instead of just seeing the person rot in jail.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 19, 2013 1:17:29 GMT -5
With no known treatments, and the foregone conclusion that they will re-offend.....would then the only possible solution be permanent incarceration? This would be expensive for tax payers, jails would become over crowded, new jails would clearly have to be built and again, I acknowledge that this would be a very expensive alternative......but I just have never been satisfied with just letting criminals go because it's cheaper. Bottom line is they did something wrong, statistics say they'll do it again, if we as a people think it is more acceptable to just cut them loose after a while and allow them to put MORE people in danger than have already been affected by their original crimes.....it's just an unacceptable solution. I'm a big fan of life in prison. Maybe instead of outsourcing our JOBS we should be outsourcing our CRIMINALS. Tell a Criminal "Oh, you like to look at child pornography? HAVE FUN LIVING IN AFGHANISTAN!" and see what he says. If we rid prisons and jails of people who are in for victimless crimes then there would be more room for those type of people. But see, we just went in a huge 7 hour circle. What reeeeeeeaally is a victimless crime? Because I'm going to agree with you on something. If I'm sitting here smoking crack right now, the only victim is ME. I'm not hurting anybody but ME, except arguably my friends and family with my inevitable death. Victimless crime, right? Howeeeeeeeever.......I gotta get my crack from somewhere. This is why we have drug dealers, gang violence, a tremendous amount of street crime in urban areas between rival groups who want to be the ones who get your money and make sure you buy their crack, and all of these GUN CRIMES which is what this thread was originally about. So while the act of me smoking the crack myself is a victimless crime.....there are a lot of victims along the way on my journey of actually acquiring my crack. So, unless you're suggesting that the Government produce and sell things like cocaine, heroin, crack and other drugs so that you have to get it directly from them (which is insane)....and even then, I'm sure it would still be sold on the secondary market because I'm sure you'd need HEALTH INSURANCE to get your "government crack", so people would still want to find a cheaper way to get it. Thus, the gangs and the drug dealers would still exist, and their crimes would still happen.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 19, 2013 1:23:53 GMT -5
If we rid prisons and jails of people who are in for victimless crimes then there would be more room for those type of people. But see, we just went in a huge 7 hour circle. What reeeeeeeaally is a victimless crime? Because I'm going to agree with you on something. If I'm sitting here smoking crack right now, the only victim is ME. I'm not hurting anybody but ME, except arguably my friends and family with my inevitable death. Victimless crime, right? Howeeeeeeeever.......I gotta get my crack from somewhere. This is why we have drug dealers, gang violence, a tremendous amount of street crime in urban areas between rival groups who want to be the ones who get your money and make sure you buy their crack, and all of these GUN CRIMES which is what this thread was originally about. So while the act of me smoking the crack myself is a victimless crime.....there are a lot of victims along the way on my journey of actually acquiring my crack. So, unless you're suggesting that the Government produce and sell things like cocaine, heroin, crack and other drugs so that you have to get it directly from them (which is insane)....and even then, I'm sure it would still be sold on the secondary market because I'm sure you'd need HEALTH INSURANCE to get your "government crack", so people would still want to find a cheaper way to get it. Thus, the gangs and the drug dealers would still exist, and their crimes would still happen. The only victim is you. Your family and friends will feel a great loss but they are not a victim. Why do you think when something happens to someone they say "the victim's family" and not "the family of victims"? If it were legal then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about the gangs and violence that stems from it. Cigarettes are still sold on the secondary market but there isn't a huge gang thing like with drugs. Take a look at Portugal.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 19, 2013 1:35:52 GMT -5
But see, we just went in a huge 7 hour circle. What reeeeeeeaally is a victimless crime? Because I'm going to agree with you on something. If I'm sitting here smoking crack right now, the only victim is ME. I'm not hurting anybody but ME, except arguably my friends and family with my inevitable death. Victimless crime, right? Howeeeeeeeever.......I gotta get my crack from somewhere. This is why we have drug dealers, gang violence, a tremendous amount of street crime in urban areas between rival groups who want to be the ones who get your money and make sure you buy their crack, and all of these GUN CRIMES which is what this thread was originally about. So while the act of me smoking the crack myself is a victimless crime.....there are a lot of victims along the way on my journey of actually acquiring my crack. So, unless you're suggesting that the Government produce and sell things like cocaine, heroin, crack and other drugs so that you have to get it directly from them (which is insane)....and even then, I'm sure it would still be sold on the secondary market because I'm sure you'd need HEALTH INSURANCE to get your "government crack", so people would still want to find a cheaper way to get it. Thus, the gangs and the drug dealers would still exist, and their crimes would still happen. The only victim is you. Your family and friends will feel a great loss but they are not a victim. Why do you think when something happens to someone they say "the victim's family" and not "the family of victims"? If it were legal then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about the gangs and violence that stems from it. Cigarettes are still sold on the secondary market but there isn't a huge gang thing like with drugs. Take a look at Portugal.I just worry that if we decriminalize drugs, we will have a rise in recreational overdosing. As it is now, kids get to high school and college and drink themselves into alcohol poisoning and drunk driving fatalities. If heroin, cocaine, crack and other drugs become as common and legally accessible as alcohol and cigarettes....yeah, you may cut out the gang middle man, but you've created a culture of people putting themselves at significant risk. I also think we'd have a lot more "under the influence" vehicle fatalities if people were able to be on drugs all the time. Because as much as we'd like to have it happen, you'd never get people to actually follow the rules if we said "ok Johnny, here's your government crack. Now you go straight home and use this by yourself and you promise not to drive, ok?" Either way, it's late and I'm tired....we can talk about this more tomorrow......unless we all get banned by then, lol.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 19, 2013 1:38:29 GMT -5
The only victim is you. Your family and friends will feel a great loss but they are not a victim. Why do you think when something happens to someone they say "the victim's family" and not "the family of victims"? If it were legal then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about the gangs and violence that stems from it. Cigarettes are still sold on the secondary market but there isn't a huge gang thing like with drugs. Take a look at Portugal.I just worry that if we decriminalize drugs, we will have a rise in recreational overdosing. As it is now, kids get to high school and college and drink themselves into alcohol poisoning and drunk driving fatalities. If heroin, cocaine, crack and other drugs become as common and legally accessible as alcohol and cigarettes....yeah, you may cut out the gang middle man, but you've created a culture of people putting themselves at significant risk. I also think we'd have a lot more "under the influence" vehicle fatalities if people were able to be on drugs all the time. Because as much as we'd like to have it happen, you'd never get people to actually follow the rules if we said "ok Johnny, here's your government crack. Now you go straight home and use this by yourself and you promise not to drive, ok?" Either way, it's late and I'm tired....we can talk about this more tomorrow......unless we all get banned by then, lol. I honestly don't think there are many, if any, people who do not use drugs because they are illegal and would start heavily using them because they are legal. At minimum this thread will be locked for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 19, 2013 6:34:51 GMT -5
Dang. This thread took a huge left turn when I went to bed.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 19, 2013 6:39:37 GMT -5
Dang. This thread took a huge left turn when I went to bed. It got a little heated.
|
|