Yea, I said it. Obama must be a Democrat In Name Only, the way he suck-holes to the Republicans, in the face of the abuse he gets from them.
He has to fight tooth and nail for projects which save the economy, catch up to the rest of the Civilized World as far as freedom is concerned, get his people into office and even deal with common sense oversight of the Russian nukes!
Why Obama hasn't clued in to politics of this is beyond me, unless that 'chess game' he's supposed to be playing is against the left. Unless he's willing to say to us that, sure he'd have done 'something' but the right just wouldn't LET HIM, presuming that the left have to vote him back in to be defeated by the right for another four years.
If I were him I'd realise the lost cause I'm in and just let the tax thing run out for everyone. Even if he gets what he wants, what with all this falderal, he's not gonna be getting ANY credit for it at all, ever.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Thought police.
I just watched a commercial which gave us statistics on what percentage of men arrested for pedophilia had pictures of children aged 3 to 5 on their computers.
I don't know about you, but I feel that this is a wedge issue. We're willing to call these men criminals because they look at photographs. It's certainly a slippery-slope 'crime' inasmuchas the 'perpetrators' are kind of being linked to the people who took the pictures, being likened to 'the kind of person' who would take pictures of this kind and distribute them if they could.
I just don't see a line that we can draw on this issue though.
"Laws have been enacted to criminalize "obscene images of children, no matter how they are made," for inciting abuse."
Really?
If I draw two stick figures 'doing the nasty' and one is, say, twice as big as the other, this could be interpreted to be a man abusing a child, and I could be arrested for inciting abuse??
Apparently, I'm breaking the law, here in Canada for peeking at this website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon
Given this law, I'm thinking that I would really be committing a crime if I were to have a Shirley Temple movie collection, because there's is no doubt in my mind that she was a bit of a sex symbol pandering to men's lust for the 'forbidden' as much as our(everyone's) love of humour and such.
"The definitive Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Sharpe, interprets the statute to include purely fictional material even when no real children were involved in its production."
There may well be 'something wrong' with grown men who are obsessed with sexually explicit stories or pictures of children, but I think that there is 'something just as wrong' with people obsessed by imagining that these men ought to be imprisoned for it.
It seems to me to be 'the seed of a crime', and taken to it's most ridiculous, we really ought to be arrested for admiring something we cannot afford to buy, since we could only be thinking of stealing it. After all, 'thou shalt not covet!'
I want to add that since those moral people seem to know exactly what is allowed and what isn't, what if there is no crime, but it looks like a crime.
For example, women all have different faces and bodies, some look very young for their age. What if I had a sexually explicit picture of a 21 year old woman who just looked like she was underage(as defined by them)?
If I share this picture, am I guilty of something because of her looks now?
I don't know about you, but I feel that this is a wedge issue. We're willing to call these men criminals because they look at photographs. It's certainly a slippery-slope 'crime' inasmuchas the 'perpetrators' are kind of being linked to the people who took the pictures, being likened to 'the kind of person' who would take pictures of this kind and distribute them if they could.
I just don't see a line that we can draw on this issue though.
"Laws have been enacted to criminalize "obscene images of children, no matter how they are made," for inciting abuse."
Really?
If I draw two stick figures 'doing the nasty' and one is, say, twice as big as the other, this could be interpreted to be a man abusing a child, and I could be arrested for inciting abuse??
Apparently, I'm breaking the law, here in Canada for peeking at this website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon
Given this law, I'm thinking that I would really be committing a crime if I were to have a Shirley Temple movie collection, because there's is no doubt in my mind that she was a bit of a sex symbol pandering to men's lust for the 'forbidden' as much as our(everyone's) love of humour and such.
"The definitive Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Sharpe, interprets the statute to include purely fictional material even when no real children were involved in its production."
There may well be 'something wrong' with grown men who are obsessed with sexually explicit stories or pictures of children, but I think that there is 'something just as wrong' with people obsessed by imagining that these men ought to be imprisoned for it.
It seems to me to be 'the seed of a crime', and taken to it's most ridiculous, we really ought to be arrested for admiring something we cannot afford to buy, since we could only be thinking of stealing it. After all, 'thou shalt not covet!'
I want to add that since those moral people seem to know exactly what is allowed and what isn't, what if there is no crime, but it looks like a crime.
For example, women all have different faces and bodies, some look very young for their age. What if I had a sexually explicit picture of a 21 year old woman who just looked like she was underage(as defined by them)?
If I share this picture, am I guilty of something because of her looks now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)