Search results for:

Why still a scumbag if your actions have no consequence? I don''t think being sexually attracted to young children makes you a scumbag any more than only being turned on by old people makes you a scumbag. There are no immoral thoughts. You become a scumbag when you act out in any of the ways I have adumbrated.

Well, that's another point. Theoretically I think that men, who, say want desperately to rape women but constantly stop themselves – and it's analogous – are probably arseholes too: I'd say both are urges borne of the desire to exercise brute power over those weaker than they are. And people like that are not usually my favourites. They are doing nothing illegal, though, as you say, and I would let them go on their way. But I don't have to like them.

Well, yes, clearly police officers investigating child porn have this 'out'; they are allowed to do what for others is illegal. And in the instance you outline then no maybe your actions have no consequences. And maybe that leads to a law that is too broad, has no philosophical basis and prosecutes people who have viewed child porn for (non-professional) reasons other than sexual gratification. And I am content with that; I think it is good enough and a price worth paying.

I don't entirely disagree on a practical level, for the reasons you give. But it is unavoidable that what we are left with is the criminalization of what is going on inside a person's head – the example of the pampers advert, benign or malign depending on the observer, makes this point. And I think that our collective abhorrence has blinded us to that fact. I believe that laws need to be made on the basis of rational, ethical, and yes, philosophical considerations, not on brute emotions like repulsion or anger; no matter how righteous they might be in this case.

What about if you pay to view the site and that money is what enables the distribution? Is that not ethically fucked up? I don't accept this certainty that there is a distinction between viewing and doing. You can effectively commission an act by dint of being a ready consumer of that act. I think it's almost sophistry to try to separate them in this example.
Also if you are so unable to contain your morbid curiosity - or come up with other bullshit excuses like Chris Langham did - then I have little sympathy. Being unable to control an urge is a frequent defence of paedophiles (and other rapists) themselves. It may be a reason but it's not an excuse and it deserves no sympathy in law. By viewing 'child porn' you may be encouraging child rape; why take the chance? And if you do take the chance then no ammount of philosophical argument will make anything other than a selfish scumbag.

What if you don't pay, and your actions have no concrete effect on the situation? Yes, still a scumbag*, of course of course. But legally? What have you done, legally? 'Created an image'? Clearly not.

*And can we all take this bit as read, please, so that those of us arguing quite a difficult point don't sound like paedo-lovers...

I'm already starting to regret bringing it up.

Think that was me, apologies. Still, at least I've got you back for the David Foster Wallace debacle :p

Good post!

As someone who's watched a beheading on LiveLeak (out of general curiosity and an unhealthy interest in death and Islamic extremism in equal measure), I get the feeling it's an issue of supply and demand. The video of someone's murder is a trophy - bragging to the world; the paedo-porn is created to fulfil a demand. While I don't disagree that the both are horriffic, the motivation for their creation is different.

For me, watching a beheading doesn't create a demand for more videos - although that may be quite naïve. Watching paedo-porn does create that demand - and that's why I think it should be illegal just to view it. I don't see how any curiosity can be that persuasive, or could justify the creation of porn to meet that demand.

I don't really know why I've posted this, but just thought I'd chuck it out there. It would only clog up my brain otherwise...

Is that not true of all porn? There are some persuasive links between violent sexual behaviour and consumption of hardcore porn. This one might be a derail too far, though :)

I am not for one moment suggesting it should be legal to create or distribute abusive images of children, just that making it illegal to view something is wrong. Will's point is what I was alluding to in my first post: it assumes that viewing is a sort of performative act, or that seeing is inextricable from doing. This is ethically all fucked up. But it's not something that's ever going to be something anyone wants to confront, really, quite understandably.

This is an argument that I have given up on.

I completely agree with you, but whenever I have pointed out to someone that this is legally "a bit weird", we end up arguing bitterly for two hours and they leave convinced that I'm a paediatrician or worse.

:D

Yup, been there

Horatio, there's a brilliant vegan cafe I go to which does a fantastic 'wheatball' sandwich – it's deep-fried wheatballs, covered in a good quality tomato and basil sauce, in a freshly cooked flatbread. The wheatballs according to the waitress, though I haven't recreated them yet, were made of breadcrumbs, mashed kidney beans, wheatflour, minced onion, garlic, a crushed dried red chilli, oregano, with a bit of lemon juice, then fried in groundnut oil till brown. Would work really well will spaghetti + tomato sauce too. If you're not a vegan I would bung an egg in for binding.

I don't quite see what the fuck it has to do with the school. He cycles to a nearby location, locks his bike up and walks through the school gates.

I don't see how/why the school has any responsibilty or say in the matter.

It's just shitty. Schools have always had bike-sheds. I grew up in the middle of nowhere, and I cycled miles to school and back every day, all year round, from the age of four of whatever – if I hadn't been allowed to I wouldn't have been able to go, seeing as my Mum didn't drive and cycled everywhere and there was no public transport. You can't just leave your bike in a field.

How are children getting to have their first kiss/joint/fag if there are no bike sheds? We Must Be Told.

.

I heard you the first time :)

Ha! Ah, well, he may be violent, but he's no bastard...

To be honest everyone I know who's met him has always said he's a lovely guy, with lots of time for the fans. The only shitty thing he did that I can think of was kick Eyal Berkovic in the head, but then Eyal Berkovic really is a horrible little cunt :)

We are all a little bit racist, though if we think about.

I read that in an Alan Partridge voice in my head.

That Irish thing is a fucking abomination, a direct kick in the balls to anything we might consider modern thinking, an unneeded comedic law, an absolute regression, a laughable sanction for every fucking half-wit superstition to scour for insult, an invitation to be offended with a €25,000 prize fund for every mother fucking lunatic who is convinced he can hear god's thoughts and wishes.

I am glad they god the complete series of Father Ted out of the way before this fucking pandering to the paper thin convictions of the credulous was enacted - I doubt they would be able to make it now.

You can always trust one of the three big superstitions to drag us backwards a few decades every now and then.

Silly cunts.

Have I made my point ?

Eloquently! It is surely unworkable, in any case? This is the wording. Note from part 3 how the onus is on the defendant to prove the material is not blasphemous.
And of course a very vague definition of what constitutes blasphemy.

1. A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.

2. For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

3. It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

Being offensive isn't illegal, is it? Except, since last week, in Ireland, that is. Unless I've missed something.

It's all semantics though is it not?

I might have racist views- therefore I am a racist, but legally I am only defined as a racist when I break the law due to racist motivations.

I might be a peadophile, but same as above really.

Get's trickier when you move onto acts which define a person after the act so to speak- mugger etc. One can argue that the mind set had to be there before hand, so a person prior to the act might always have been a mugger, but previously they had not acted on it.

To travel any distance down that path you rapidly get into far too scary surmises.

Minority report was the diminutive Scientologist film that used this premise was it not?

But the difference is the point at which you break the law: for racism, as people have argued, the act needs to be illegal in itself but with the added racial motivation. In child-porn legislation, looking at an image online is now defined as an an act that in itself brings about harm. I don't think that looking at an image is in any meaningful sense of the word 'creating' it with all that implies, so the semantics are entirely misleading. They've been twisted beyond what the language really allows so that we can collectively criminalise what is abhorrent to us as a society, which is natural and, I'm sure a lot of people feel, right. But it's dangerous when you invite the state in to an area like this – cf the police seizing pieces of art that include partially naked children etc.

Which is why they've defined downloading as 'creating', which is semantic sleight of hand really.

If I've got what Tommy's said right, then yes - that's it.

The very concept of racism can only be understood in the way that it defines your actions. The difficulty is in understanding it in the context of other crimes and misdemeanours. You can't be a murderer unless you've murdered someone, and you can't be fraudster unless you've committed fraud. It's important that you stop equating 'racism' with these sorts of crimes, because the legal framework just doesn't apply in the same way.

I tend to think of the '-isms' as being like paedophilia - being a paedophile isn't a crime in itself if you're able to control your impulses and continue to live a law-abiding life as part of a civil society. The moment you download child porn or solicit sex from a minor, the paedophilia becomes illegal. I'm sure we can all agree that being a paedophile without acting on your impulses remains objectionable, but until it's acted upon, there simply is no "crime" in the way we tend to understand it.

But just as would be the case in a racist incident, there are degrees of seriousness and degrees of interpretation. If someone steals a glance at a 15 year old girl, is that paedophilia? To some, yes it is. If someone ignores their daughter's boyfriend on the sole basis that he's black? To some, yes it is.

If there's a body in a tarpaulin sheet buried in a shallow grave with a bullet hole in its forehead, that's a murder - it can be that black and white (forgive the pun). There's almost always a grey area in terms of racist incidents however, hence the legal definition being so broad.

In terms of the '-isms', they can make illegal actions 'more' illegal, but they can also turn legal actions into illegal ones - hence my belief that racism itself is illegal. If it can make an action which on its own is perfectly legal, illegal, then surely the logical response is that any kind of racism that manifests itself in behaviour is illegal, since it can turn legal actions into illegal ones?

Child porn is a difficult example because should, theoretically, looking at something ever be a crime? It presupposes intent, which is very murky ground. If a paedophile watches a pampers advert with naked babies in it, does that transform the advert itself into something malign – ie does the act of observation alter the thing observed a la Schroedinger's cat? Clearly not. So the crime of looking at an image presupposes one's private reactions to that image, if you see what I mean, which is not an area I believe the state should have any jurisdiction in/over.

I'm talking about the legal point here, obviously, not defending the consumption of such images or the creation of a market for them. But I still think that making it illegal to look at something is, basically, wrong.

As to the larger point, tynan is correct, I think. The problem with the argument is the different uses of the ideas of being and action… do we create our being with our actions? Yours is an interestingly existential position!

smokes pipe

Celtic might be a skint club, but a small club they most certainly are not.

Oh, and get well soon Big Bad John :(

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jul/13/john-hartson-suffering-from-cancer

I hate violent bastards more than all the other sorts of bastard. Go get him, Marky.

I like A but the pearlescentness of it is a bit girly.

have just put a concor supercorsa on mine and it is lovely.. can't recommend it enough :)
got it at Cavendish - apparently they've got a few in - but, word to the wise, they're a tenner cheaper at Shop14.

My bashed up ancient supercorsa is the comfiest saddle I've ever had.

I'm tempted to upgrade my Smile account to the Smile More one.

Is it worth the £13 a month? I'm just keeping in mind this adds up to £156 a year, which could be better spent paying off credit cards etc. I can afford it, but is it worth it?

I'm with smile, and it seems a bit bonkers to me. Banks' own insurance schemes are always overpriced. Then again, they charge me 20 quid a month interest as I never got round to paying off my student overdraft.

So what do I know, in conclusion.

As you were.

No worries, it's not very important to do that. It's just that a lot of people who go vegetarian or vegan want these substitutes in a straight swap. It's the sort of processed food they're used to (of course, as a vegan you can eat only junk if you want), it means that they don't have to be too imaginative about how they adapt their diet, and all in all it's a bit like saying that you want your bike to have four wheels and an engine. For instance, I used to drink a lot of milk, but I've hardly ever touched soya drinks because I think that most of them taste revolting. On the other hand, I do like vegan ice cream, which isn't really a 'substitute', as it's better than dairy ice cream (try it if you don't believe me). I also like vegan yogurt, although that is still less successful than dairy yogurt, but passable. It'll all improve over time, anyway, as new procedures and ingredients are discovered. I just hope it won't stray into too much chemistry and still be moderately natural in conception.

That's certainly true. Your palate changes really quickly. I recently got some Bute Island Scheese, which they attempt to flavour like dairy cheese--Redwood Cheezly is much more subtly flavoured (some might say that it doesn't taste of much, and they wouldn't be far wrong). But I really didn't like the Scheese, as it reminded me too much of dairy cheese. There are also those vegan all-you-can-eat buffet places in London, which do various meat substitutes, most of them quite nicely flavoured, not really tasting like meat, but there is a kind of prawn substitute, shaped like prawns, tasting really fishy, which I don't like at all. It reminds me too much of fish corpse, and I really don't want to eat that shit any more.

Anyway, that old 'so what do you eat?' question is now fairly pointless, as a two-second Google brings up millions of vegan recipes.

I quite like soya milk, but then I do drink a shit-load of tea. Other than that, and smoked tofu, there's no other substitute type things I eat. Never tried the ice-cream or yoghurt, maybe I will.

Veganism is easy if you're a good cook, I reckon. I imagine it's a nightmare if you hate it. That said most things I eat are dishes I haven't really adapted at all from just being vegetarian, other than, um, leaving the cheese off the top :)

Wrong forum dude...

http://www.exrx.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=319

bellyflops