ruckman101 wrote:
Yes, by providing a market and participating in the sexual abuse of children, albeit from an armchair, those folks are violating the rights of those children to live unmolested, free, happy, productive, etc.
neal
That means they have their part.
Just go after the one committing the crime. A dam picture is just that, better yet, it is a digital image. If they concentrated their efforts to those actually committing a crime we'd be better off than them busting some fat dude who lives on his computer.
Would it be possible for you to reflect back to when you first thought this?
I know there has been alot of crap on the TV, and the power there is great, mix kids in the picture and they could have us bombing whole countries for two guys making films in a tent.
Maybe I should use a different way of getting the "apply logic" point across.
You say "by providing a market and participating in the sexual abuse of children, albeit from an armchair, those folks are violating the rights of those children ".
I say, just those who forced them to do it.
So, they are guilty according to your reasoning because they
provided a market, IE, participated by utilizing these items, by using these items they aided in those people committing crimes.
If this is applied to other things does it seem to be the norm?
Would you be for being treated as badly as the criminal just because you use something, hence provided a market for it?
Perhaps Oil is a good example, have you stopped using oil yet? Your usage of oil "provided a market" and makes a participant in the wars for oil, albeit from far away, but are you not party to any crimes committed by getting oil?
Shall we go on?
Does it pass the test?
Are you for treating anyone who uses something as a criminal just like any actual criminal in the supply chain just because they consume the item?
I think most people would not, they are for this one because of the "kids".
The greater problem I see is this.
They let emotions override logic, and now we have overreaching laws, which is a wonderful benefit for those controlling society. Get the people to toss out logic, then we can get laws that violate rights. This is why I argue that, not because I sympathize with the guy watching the porn, I see the problem with letting the leaders use emotions to get the people to allow violations of rights.
Is this not what they did with the drug laws? Used emotions to create fear, mixed kids in there, and presto, now a Drug War without even a Constitutional Amendment.
After 9/11, the same thing, used emotions and other clever means to induce fear to get the people to give up liberties and support the wars.
This is similar, emotions due to kids to get people into wrong laws.